1 (1) S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1456/2006. Prabhu Lal Vs. Moda Ram & Ors. Date of Order :: 16th March 2007. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Narpat Singh, for the appellant. By way of this appeal the claimant seeks enhancement over the amount of Rs.1,36,100/- awarded by the Tribunal towards compensation on account of accidental death of his mother Smt. Ghisi Bai, about 50 years in age. For quantum of compensation, the claimant asserted that the deceased was working as a midwife and a cook and was earning Rs.2,100/- per month and was likely to earn for 15-20 years more. The Tribunal has taken note of the evidence as produced on record and has also considered the fact that there was no rebuttal of the assertion on income of the deceased at Rs.2,100/- per month but for want of proper corroboration has put an estimate on her income at Rs.1,500/- per month; and after deducting one-third on her personal expenditure has taken loss of contribution for the claimant at Rs.1,000/- per month. The Tribunal has also taken notice of the fact that the claimant was about 30 years in age and said to be earning Rs.1,500/- while working at his uncle's shop. In the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has taken annual loss of dependency at Rs.12,000/- and with application of multiplier of 10, has assessed pecuniary loss at Rs.1,20,000/-. Allowing further Rs.10,000/- towards non- 2 pecuniary loss, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and another Rs.1,100/- towards transportation, the Tribunal has made the award in the sum of Rs.1,36,100/-. Assailing the award aforesaid and seeking enhancement, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal has been in error in not accepting uncontroverted evidence about the income of the deceased; that the Tribunal has been in error in discarding the evidence for want of so-called certificate from a person with whom the deceased was working as a cook and then applying the multiplier of 10 only. Learned counsel contended that the award as made by the Tribunal being on the lower side deserves to be enhanced. Learned counsel also pointed that other appeals arising out of the same award are pending before this Court. So far quantum of compensation is concerned, every claim case is required to be considered on its own merits and mere pendency of any other appeal in relation to any other claim for compensation, though decided by the common award, cannot have any bearing on the quantum of compensation in the present appeal. The submissions sought to be urged in this appeal remain bereft of substance and cannot be accepted. Noticeable it is that the deceased was 50 years in age the claimant himself about 30 years in age and this has been alleged to the entire 3 composition of the family of the mother and the son. In the context of such family set up, though the probability of the deceased engaging herself remains thin, more particularly when her son was nevertheless earning himself, but even if be accepted, the loss of contribution for the appellant cannot be taken at two-third of the estimated income. Because of lesser number of dependants, personal expenditure in excess of one- third cannot be ruled out. In this view of the matter, this Court is satisfied that even if the income assertion of the deceased at Rs.2,100/- is accepted on its face value, loss of contribution for the claimant cannot be taken beyond Rs.1,000/- per month; and the multiplicand at Rs.12,000/- as taken by the Tribunal does not appear insufficient. Application of multiplier of 10 does not seem entirely inappropriate looking to the overall facs and surrounding circumstances of the case. Then, the Tribunal has allowed reasonably higher amount towards non-pecuniary loss and funeral expenses. In the ultimate analysis, the award of compensation as made in this case cannot be said to be too low or grossly inadequate so as to warrant interference in this appeal by the claimant. The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed summarily. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/