1 ` S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.672/2007. (Smt. Pushpa Devi & Ors. Vs. Alsiram & Ors.) Date of Order :: 13th February 2007. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Ms. Usha Tanwar for Mr. B.K.Vyas for the appellants ... Having heard learned counsel for the claimant- appellants and having perused the award impugned and so also the memo of appeal, this Court is satisfied that not only this appeal for enhancement remains bereft of substance but even the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal appears to be rather excessive particularly when examined in the context of the fact that the claim for compensation was tainted with utter falsehood in relation to the age of the victim and so also of his son. The fatal accident in question occurred on 06.04.2002 when the deceased Narain Lal riding his motorcycle was hit and crushed by a jeep bearing registration No.RJN 5184. The claimants, wife and three sons of the victim made claim for compensation against the persons related with the jeep aforesaid and for quantification submitted that deceased was 45 years of age and was serving with Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitaran 2 Nigam Ltd., Bikaner earning Rs.90,696/- per annum. It was also asserted that claimant No.4 Vijay Kumar was minor being 17 years of age. The Tribunal has found the accident to have occurred for rash and negligent driving of the jeep in question. While taking up quantification of compensation, the Tribunal has noticed the significant fact that the date of birth of the victim was stated as '02.07.1949' in his service record and, therefore, he was about 53 years of age on the date of accident i.e. 06.04.2002. The Tribunal has also noticed that after demise of Narainlal, his son Vijay Kumar was accorded compassionate appointment by the employer of the victim; and in the application made by Vijay Kumar, his date of birth was stated as '26.10.1983'; and obviously on the date of filing of claim application (i.e. 24.05.2002) he was not a minor. The Tribunal has noticed that the deceased was earning net amount of Rs.6,533/- per month after deductions and has proceeded to apply multiplier of 8 after deduction of one-third on the personal expenditure and has thus assessed pecuniary loss at Rs.4,18,112/- (6,533 x 12 x 2/3 x 8). The Tribunal has also allowed Rs.10,000/- to the wife of the deceased towards loss of consortium and Rs.5,000/- to each of the sons for loss of love and affection and guidance of their father and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and in this manner has held the claimants entitled for compensation in the sum of 3 Rs.4,63,112/- and has allowed interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim application after adjustment of the amount of Rs.50,000/- received under No Fault Liability. It has been submitted in the memo of appeal filed in the present case that deceased was only 45 years of age; that the Tribunal has been in error in taking average income of the deceased at Rs.6,533/-; that the Tribunal has also erred in applying the multiplier of 8 only; and that the non-pecuniary loss has been allowed on the lower side. The significant fact noticed by the Tribunal that date of birth of the deceased was stated in his service record as 02.07.1949 has not been put to contention, and appears unquestionable. It appears that service record was got produced by the non-applicant insurer through NAW-1 Paraj Kumar, an Assistant Engineer with the employer of the deceased. Viewed in that context, it is obvious that the claimants had not been truthful when they attempted to assert the age of deceased at 45 years though he was about 53 years of age. Moreover, the claimants made another misstatement in relation to the age of Vijay Kumar, son of the deceased. He has got compassionate appointment in place of his deceased father and stated his date of birth as '26.10.1983'. He was obviously above 18 ½ years of age at the time of filing of 4 claim application on 24.05.2002; yet he was attempted to be shown as minor in the claim application. His age has been mentioned as '20 years' in the memo of appeal filed before this Court on 28.04.2006 though, going by the date of birth stated in his service record, he was 23 ½ years of age at that time. Consequently, and obviously, the age of his elder brother stated as 22 years is also incorrect. It is to be imbibed that claims for compensation are allowed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to the bona fide claimants who had suffered loss due to vehicular accident; but a claim for compensation cannot be allowed to be used as means of profiteering by misstatement of material facts, as attempted in this case. Application of multiplier of 8 in the present case and adopting of multiplicand on the basis of last drawn net income of the deceased has itself worked to higher figure towards pecuniary loss and claim for enhancement by the present claimants appears wholly unjustified. The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed summarily. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. MK