1 42 S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.758/2007. Smt. Krishna Kanwar & Ors. Vs. Udai Lal & Ors. Date of Order :: 19th February 2007. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Manish Pitaliya, for the appellants. ... For quantification of compensation to be awarded to the wife, about 23 years in age and four children, said to be about 15 to 6 years in age, of the vehicular accident victim Kamal Singh, said to be about 28 years in age and earning Rs.100/- per day as a labourer and another Rs.2,000/- to 3,000/- per month from agriculture, the Tribunal has noticed that no documentary evidence about agriculture income was available and taking the deceased as a casual labourer, has put an estimate on his monthly income at Rs.2,100/- per month; and after deducting one-third wherefrom on his personal expenditure , has taken annual loss at Rs.16,800/- and with application of multiplier of 18, has assessed pecuniary loss at Rs.3,02,400/-; and after allowing Rs.20,000/- to the wife and Rs.10,000/- to each of the four children towards non-pecuniary loss and another Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, has made the award of compensation in the sum of Rs.3,64,400/-; and has allowed interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application. The award is sought to be questioned by the claimants as being low and inadequate. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants seeking enhancement contended that the Tribunal has taken a lower multiplicand despite there being unrebutted evidence of the claimants and has not provided for future prospects though the victim was in a younger age. The submissions are bereft of substance. 2 The deceased has not been shown in any settled job or employment for which any component of future enhancement could be taken into consideration. With reference to the evidence available on record, the estimate put by the Tribunal on the earnings of the deceased at Rs.2,100/- per month does not appear grossly inadequate; and the Tribunal has capitalised by the maximum side multiplier of 18. Though it is noticeable that the age of the elder daughter of the deceased has been shown at about 15 years and the age of the deceased was alleged to be about 28 years and that of his wife at 23 years but without going any further into this aspect, suffice it to observe that the application of multiplier of 18 in the present case seems rather excessive. Then, the Tribunal has proceeded to allow in all, Rs.60,000/- towards non-pecuniary loss and in this manner has ultimately made the award in the sum of Rs.3,64,400/- that could only be said to be in excess of just compensation admissible in this case and rules out any scope for enhancement. The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed summarily. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. //Mohan//