1 4 S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.468/2007 (Smt.Geeta Devi & Ors. Vs. Mahaveer Singh & Ors.) Date of Order ::6th August 2007 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. S.K.Sankhla, for the appellants. ... For quantification of compensation to be awarded to the wife and two major sons of the vehicular accident victim Ratan Lal, the Tribunal has noticed the assertion of the claimants that the deceased was 45 years of age and was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month while working as a driver with 'Nimbark Sampradaya Peeth'; and has also referred to a certificate produced on record (Ex.12) in relation to such work and salary of the victim; but has not accepted such assertion of the claimants that the victim was earning Rs.5,000/- per month as a driver for want of his driving license and for want of corroborative evidence in relation to the certificate Ex.-12. The Tribunal has put on estimate on the income of the deceased at Rs.2,190/- per month, calculated on daily wages at Rs.73/- per day; and after deducting one-third on his personal expenditure and with application of multiplier of 13, while accepting the assertion of claimants about the age of deceased at 45 years and while rejecting the contention of the insurer on his age at 57 years with reference to the electoral-list Ex.D/1 being only of approximation on age, the Tribunal has assessed pecuniary loss at Rs.2,27,760/- (1,460/- x 12 x 13). 2 The Tribunal has further allowed Rs.22,000/- towards general damages and while making award of compensation in the sum of Rs.2,49,760/-, has allowed interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application. The claimants seek to assail the award aforesaid in this appeal as being low and inadequate; and learned counsel for the claimants has strenuously contended that the Tribunal has erred in not assessing the pecuniary loss on the basis of the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month for he was earning as a vehicle driver; that the Tribunal has erred in failing to consider that the accident in question occurred only while the deceased was driving the vehicle of his employer and further, there was no reason to disbelieve the certificate Ex.12 and so also the testimony of A.W.2 Gajraj Singh, an occupant of the vehicle driven by the victim Ratan Lal at the time of accident. Learned counsel submitted in the alternative that even on daily wage basis, the estimate put by the Tribunal on such wages only at Rs.73/- per day is too insufficient in the context of the period of incident, that is of the year 2005. Learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has been in error in applying a multiplier of 13 only; and in view of the age of the victim at about 45 years, multiplier of 15 ought to have been applied. Having examined the matter in its totality, this Court is satisfied that the award in question does not call for interference in appeal. 3 In relation to the choice of multiplier, though the claimants have asserted that the victim was 45 years of age but then, the respondents have produced on record a copy of the electoral-list of the year 2004 (Ex.D/1), showing the age of the victim at 57 years. Even if it be assumed that the figures stated in the said list were only of approximation, it cannot be said that the deceased was below 45 years of age at the time of accident; and hence,application of multiplier of 13 cannot be said to be inappropriate. So far the job and income of the deceased are concerned, true it is that the accident is alleged to have occurred while the deceased was driving the vehicle bearing registration No. RJ 14- 6C-0545; but on the basis of this fact alone it cannot be concluded that the victim was a qualified driver and his earnings came from a driver's job. The claimants have failed to produce the very basic piece of evidence in that regard, i.e., the driving licence of the victim, if at all he had any. Similarly, no evidentary value could be assigned to the certificate Ex.12 issued by 'Akhil Bharatiya Shri Nimarkacharya Peeth' for want of cogent corroborative evidence. Neither the author of the said certificate has been examined nor corroborative documentary evidence in the form of accounts and vouchers of the said institution has been produced. In the circumstances of the case, for the claimant omitting to produce relevant evidence, the Tribunal cannot be said to have erred in disbelieving the case that the 4 deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month as a vehicle driver. Of course, the estimate put by the Tribunal on monthly income of the deceased only at Rs.2,190/- appears to be bit on the lower side but in the context of the family set up where the dependents- claimants are the wife and two sons of the deceased; and the sons are said to be in 22 and 19 years of age, the factor of dependency cannot be said to be more than Rs.1,460/- per month, as taken by the Tribunal after deducting only one-third on personal expenditure of the deceased. In view of the lesser number of dependents and in view of the age of the claimant-sons, the ultimate assessment of pecuniary loss at Rs.2,27,760/- cannot be said to be grossly insufficient. The Tribunal has further awarded reasonably an amount of Rs. 22,000/- towards general damages. In the ultimate analysis, the award in question, even if moderate, cannot be said to be too low or grossly inadequate; and rules out any scope for interference in appeal. The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed summarily. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. s.soni