1 S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.60/2007. (Kandan & Ors. Vs. Habibulla & Ors.) Date of Order :: 8th January 2007. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. R.K. Mehta, for the appellants. ... While quantifying compensation for the parents of the vehicular accident victim Mahendradan, about 20 years in age and said to be working as conductor on a private bus, the Tribunal has not accepted the assertion of the claimants about income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month for want of any cogent corroborative evidence and has put an estimate on his income at Rs.2,000/- and after deducting one-third on his personal expenditure and with application of multiplier of 8 in view of the age of the mother of the victim at 55 years and that of father at 58 years, has assessed pecuniary loss at Rs.1,28,000/-. The Tribunal has further allowed Rs.20,000/- towards non-pecuniary loss and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and has thereby assessed compensation payable to the parents of the victim in the sum of Rs.1,53,000/- and has also allowed interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application. 2 The claimants seek enhancement over the amount of compensation by way of this appeal. The award of compensation as made by the Tribunal in the present cannot be said to be too low or grossly inadequate so as to warrant interference in appeal. The deceased was an unmarried person in 20 years of age and said to be working as conductor on a private bus; and for want of any cogent and reliable evidence, the estimation of his income as put by the Tribunal, though on the lower side, cannot be said to be grossly insufficient. Application of multiplier of 8 does not appear incorrect in view of the age of the parents at 55 years and 58 years respectively. Moreover, the Tribunal has taken entire of two-third of the estimated income of the deceased towards loss of contribution for the claimants. The deceased was an unmarried person and having regard to the future likelihood of his getting married and larger part of his income getting diverted to his own family and his contribution to the parents getting reduced, this Court is of opinion that not more than one-half of his estimated income could have been taken towards loss of contribution for the parents in this case. Therefore, even if the assertion of the claimants about the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- be taken into consideration, the assessment of pecuniary loss does not suffer from gross inadequacy. Moreover, the 3 Tribunal has allowed Rs.20,000/- towards non-pecuniary loss and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and, therefore, even if there is a bit of inadequacy in assessment of pecuniary loss, the same is effectively compensated. Furthermore, the Tribunal has allowed interest @ 7.5% per annum and such rate of interest in the award made in the month of March 2006 cannot be said to be on the lower side. In the ultimate analysis, the award made by the Tribunal cannot be said to be too low or grossly inadequate so as to warrant interference in appeal. The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed summarily. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. //Mohan//