1 12 S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1092/2006. Pushpa Kanwar & Ors. Vs. Gurdev Singh @ Keval Singh & Ors. Date of Order : 14th March 2007. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Devendra Mahalana, for the appellants. .... BY THE COURT: This appeal has been preferred by the claimants against the award dated 10.03.2005 made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sriganganagar in Claim Case No.26/2003 whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.4,54,000/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application to the wife, three children and parents of the vehicular accident victim Karanpal Singh Shekhawat, about 40 years in age and said to be earning by way of agriculture and from a dairy-farm. The claimants asserted income of the deceased at around Rs.3 lacs per annum from agriculture and Rs.2 lacs per annum from dairy-farm and submitted that he was spending a little on himself. The claimants also asserted that the grand- mother of the deceased had gifted him 25 bighas of agricultural land, his father had 50 bighas of agricultural land, and the deceased himself was having 160 bighas of land near 2 village Kotda. The Tribunal has referred to the Jamabandies and Girdhawaries produced on record and has noticed that neither any proof regarding alleged gift has been produced nor any land has been shown existing in the name of the deceased Karanpal Singh. However, in the overall circumstances of the case, the Tribunal formed the opinion that the deceased was engaged in agriculture with his family. In relation to the quantum of income from agriculture and dairy- farm, the Tribunal has noticed that no documentary proof was produced on record regarding the income and expenditure or about any transactions or turn-over so as to believe that the deceased was earning substantially from such sources. The Tribunal has also commented on the assertion of the claimants about the deceased not spending upon himself that with the alleged substantial earnings, he would have placed the same in some investment either in bank or financial institution or in creation of estate but no such evidence was available on record. In the overall circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has put an estimate on the income of the deceased at Rs.3,600/- per month and after deducting one-third wherefrom and with application of multiplier of 15, in view of the age of the deceased at 40 years, has assessed pecuniary loss at Rs.4,32,000/-. Allowing further Rs.20,000/- towards non- 3 pecuniary loss and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal has made the award of compensation in the sum of Rs.4,54,000/- and has also allowed interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has strenuously contended that with 235 bighas of agricultural land with the family, even if the deceased be assumed having half of it, i.e. about 175 bighas of agricultural land, estimate on his income as put by the Tribunal at Rs.3,600/- per month remains entirely inadequate. Learned counsel submitted that the deceased was the only member in the family who was earning by putting his own labour in agriculture and dairy-farming and assessment of loss with his income only at Rs.3,600/- per month is on the lower side and the award deserves upward revision more particularly in view of the fact that the deceased had six dependents including three minor children. From the perusal of record, it turns out that the claimants have failed to establish the fundamental fact if the deceased was having substantial agricultural land so as to consider it to be a definite source of his income. In the overall circumstances of the case, if the assertion of the claimants about the deceased having any agricultural land of himself or being engaged in dairy-farm is taken on its face value, a part of such income retaining itself to the claimants cannot be ruled 4 out. The estimate put by the Tribunal on the income of the deceased at Rs.3,600/- per month might appear standing on the lower side in the context of assertion of the claimants of his income at about Rs.5,00,000/- per annum but then, such assertion turns out to be hollow and is not supported by cogent and reliable evidence. In the face of evidence available on record, the ultimate award as made by the Tribunal even if moderate, cannot be said to be too low or grossly inadequate so as to call for upward revision in appeal. The Tribunal has further allowed interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application and such rate of interest in the award made on 10.03.2005 cannot be said to be low or insufficient. The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed summarily. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/