1 S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.983/2006. (Smt. Alol & Ors. Vs. Baba Saheb & Ors.) Date of Order :: 21st February 2007. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Hemant Kumar for Mr. Rakesh Arora, for the appellants. ... For quantification of compensation to be awarded to the mother, wife and two minor children of the vehicular accident victim Pyar Chandra alias Pyara Jat, about 29-30 years of age, the Tribunal has noticed the assertion of the claimants about the deceased earning Rs.4,000/- per month from selling ice-cream and juice, and from agriculture and dairy-farming. The Tribunal has observed that no cogent documentary evidence has been produced in relation to the earnings of the deceased and about his qualifications; and taking him as an unskilled labourer, has assessed his annual income at Rs.26,280/- (@ Rs.73/- per day) and after deducting one-third wherefrom towards his personal expenditure and with application of multiplier of 17, has assessed pecuniary loss at Rs.2,97,840/-. The Tribunal has also allowed Rs.10,000/- towards non-pecuniary loss and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and in this manner, has made the 2 award of compensation in the sum of Rs.3,09,840/- and has allowed interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application. Learned counsel Mr. Hemant Kumar arguing for the appellants seeking enhancement over the amount of compensation has particularly referred to the documentary evidence produced by the appellants in relation to the income from milk selling Ex.9 and agricultural land records (Jamabandi) Ex.10, 11 and 12; and submitted that the Tribunal has been in error in not considering substantial income of the deceased from dairy-farming and agriculture and in not awarding adequate compensation. The submissions are not well founded. The document Ex.9 issued by Hathipura Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Samiti Limited of Panchayat Samiti Mandal, District Bhilwara is hardly of any proof in relation to the income of the deceased from milk vending. The said document Ex.9 has been scribed on a leaf of printed receipt book, probably meant for issuing receipt of the amount received. Be that as it may, from the said document only this much is discernible that the deceased Pyar Chandra supplied milk worth Rs.14,237.57 in the year 1999-2000; worth Rs.13,980.60 in the year 2000- 2001; and for Rs.7,902.16 in the year 2001-2002. The so- called supplies as referred in the document Ex.9 only show 3 that in the year 2001-2002, the supply was nearly half as compared to the preceding year and then, there is no reference of supply for the year 2002-2003 though the accident occurred on 14.03.2003 and the said document has been issued on 20.05.2004. This is apart from the fact that the person issuing the said document has not been produced in evidence. It is difficult to find on the basis of the said document Ex.9 that the deceased was earning about Rs.15,000/- per annum from dairy-farming as asserted by his wife in her statements. In fact the alleged supply of milk itself has not been of Rs.15,000/- in any of the years; and as noticed above, the supply in the year 2001-2002 had only been of Rs.7,902.16. Taking into account the necessary expenditure for maintaining a dairy-farm and for want of any reference to the supply for the year 2002-2003, this court is satisfied that the Tribunal has not erred in not taking into consideration any component of income from such dairy farming. So far income from agricultural land is concerned, the wife of the deceased has asserted their having 20 bighas of land and the deceased earlier earning Rs.20,000/- per annum. She has admitted having cultivated land the year prior to her statements. Then, it has been asserted that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per annum from ice-cream business. 4 From the very nature of the sources of income of the deceased whether by way of ice-cream business or from agriculture or for that matter even from dairy farming, it is obvious that some part of the income retains itself to the claimants in the form of the land, livestock and the established business assets. The pecuniary loss for the claimants could only be estimated with reference to the loss related with the skill, labour and management of the victim. Taking an overall view of the matter, this Court is of opinion that the net income of the deceased as taken by the Tribunal at Rs.26,280/- cannot be said to be an estimate on the lower side. The Tribunal has taken loss of dependency at Rs.17,520/- per annum and has reasonably applied the multiplier of 17. Of course, the amount of non-pecuniary loss at Rs.10,000/- appears a bit inadequate but in the ultimate analysis, the award as made by the Tribunal cannot be said to be falling short of just compensation admissible in this case; and rules out scope for enhancement. The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed summarily. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. //Mohan//