1 S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.259/2007. Rang Lal & Ors. Vs. Aslam Khan & Ors. Date of Order :: 6th August 2007. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Deelip Kawadia, for the appellants. ... For quantification of compensation to be awarded to the husband, sons and daughter-in-law of the vehicular accident victim Smt. Champa Bai (about 60 years of age), the Tribunal has noticed the assertion of the claimants that the deceased was earning about Rs.3,641/- per month while working as a commission agent with M/s. Alankar Engineers, Udaipur; and after examining the documentary evidence produced on record including two certificates Exs. 111 and 112 and the tax return Ex.113, and finding that in the tax return, her net annual income was shown at Rs.36,990/-; the Tribunal has put an estimate on the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. The Tribunal has also noticed that the deceased was about 60 years of age and her sons were around 40 years of age; and has applied multiplier of 8 for the purpose of assessment of loss; and after deducting one-third on personal expenditure of the deceased, has assessed pecuniary loss at Rs.1,92,000/-; and allowing further Rs.27,000/- towards general damages, has made the award of compensation in the sum of Rs.2,19,000/-; and has allowed interest @ 6% per 2 annum from the date of filing of the claim application. The claimants seek enhancement by way of this appeal. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and having examined the record, this Court is clearly of opinion that the impugned award on its quantification even otherwise remains rather on the higher side and rules out any scope for enhancement. It has been strenuously contended by the learned counsel for the appellants with reference to the income shown in the computation annexed to the tax return Ex.113 that apart from other sources, the annual income of the deceased only from commission was Rs.38,240/- and the Tribunal has been in error in taking her income only at Rs.3,000/- per month, i.e. Rs.36,000/- per annum; and that substantial income of the victim as shown from the certificates Exs. 111 and 112 at Rs.43,700/- and Rs.46,576/- has been ignored. However, a close look at the certificates Ex. 111 and the statement of total income as annexed to the tax return gives rise to more questions rather than supplying answers. Apart from the fact that on the basis of the certificate Ex.111 issued by a private firm, income of the deceased cannot be assessed for want of cogent corroborative evidence in the form of accounts of the said firm and of the victim, the significant fact remains that in the certificate Ex.111, the firm Alankar Engineers has 3 proceeded to certify that they had paid to the deceased a sum of Rs.43,700/- towards commission for their sales promotion for the year 1997-98. The tax return Ex.113 is specifically for the accounting year 1997-98, and has been filed in relation to the assessment year 1998-99; and the computation annexed thereto has shown total income from commission only at Rs.38,240/-. Obviously, the certificate Ex.111 is not compatible with the computation of income of the deceased as made for the purpose of income tax return Ex.113. The certificate Ex.112 has been issued by another private Mines Owner, S. Sohan Singh Jogendra Singh & Company, allegedly making payment of Rs.46,576/- to the deceased towards sales commission for the year ending 31st March 1999. Again, neither the accounts of the said Mines Owner nor of the deceased have been produced; and there is no other corroboration in relation to the said certificate. In the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal cannot be said to be to have erred in putting estimate on the income of the victim at Rs.3,000/- per month. Moreover, in view of the age of the claimants, even the loss of dependency seems to have been taken rather on the higher side at two-third of the estimated income. The Tribunal has applied maximum side multiplier of 8; and has not restricted in award of general damages either. 4 In the ultimate analysis, the award made by the Tribunal in this case could only be said to be rather on the higher side and rules out any scope for enhancement. Learned counsel has also urged that the interest has been awarded at a lower rate. The submission cannot be accepted. The Tribunal even otherwise has liberally allowed the amount of compensation and in such an award made on 19.12.2005, the rate of interest at 6% per annum cannot be said to be inadequate from any stand point. Therefore, the appeal does not merit admission; and is dismissed summarily. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/