IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDIC.ATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.103/98 Smt. Suman Lata & Ors. V/s. Tilochan Kumar & Ors. Date of Judgment :: 19.03.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN Mr. V.V. Harit for the appellants. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Sharma for the respondent. The widowed wife and four children have challenged the award dated 30.09.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Kishangarh, District Ajmer (for short, 'the learned Tribunal'), whereby the learned Tribunal had granted a compensation of Rs.1,21,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that on 11.03.1995, while Mr. Om Prakash Maheshwari, was going on Jaipur By-pass Road, from Harmara Choraha to Roopangarh Choraha, on his bicycle, he was hit by a gas tanker, bearing registration No.HNX 2367. Due to this accident, Shri Maheshwari expired on the spot. Since, the appellants lost their sole bread earner, they filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. In order to substantiate their case, they examined two witnesses and submitted ten documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal granted the compensation as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. Mr. V.V. Harit, the learned counsel for the appellants has raised the following contentions : firstly, according to the statement of Smt. Suman Lata, appellant No.1, her husband was earning Rs.4,000/- per month as a “Dalal” in marble business. However, the learned Tribunal has taken his income to be only Rs.1,150/- per month. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the income of the deceased has wrongly been assessed by the learned Tribunal. Secondly, only Rs.10,000/- has been granted to the appellants under the categories of “loss of consortium” and “loss of love and affection”. Thus, this amount is too mearge to compensate a widow and the children. On the other hand, Mr. Dinesh Kumar Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3, the Insurance Company, has argued that there is no documentary evidence to corroborate the oral testimony of Smt. Suman Lata. In the absence of any corroborative evidence, her statement cannot be accepted as a gospel truth. The compensation of Rs.10,000/- under the categories of “loss of consortium” and “loss of love and affection” is more than “just and reasonable”. Therefore, he has supported the impugned award. It is, indeed, a settled principle of law that any statement made by a party has to be supported by evidence. In her statement, although Smt. Suman Lata does mention that her husband was working as a “dalal” and his income was about Rs.4,000/- per month, but she does not prove her statement by any documentary evidence. In case, the deceased was engaged as a “dalal”, some documentary evidence should have been produced to show the nature of the business, in which he was engaged. Even if, no documents were available to prove that the deceased was dealing with other persons, “the other persons” should have been produced as witnesses to substantiate her claim that her husband was working as “Dalal” in the business of Marble and his income was Rs.4,000/- per month. In absence of any corroborative piece of evidence, the learned Tribunal cannot be faulted for taking the income on the basis of minimum wages payable at the relevant time. Therefore, there is no merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. As far as the compensation under the categories of “loss of consortium” and “loss of love and affection” is concerned, we see no reason to interfere with the same. Hence, this appeal has no merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S. CHAUHAN),J A.Asopa/- Mr. J.P. Gupta, the learned counsel has argued that only one-third of the income can be deducted as the amount the deceased would have spent upon himself. However, the learned Tribunal has erroneously deducted one-half of the income as the amount deceased would have spent upon himself. Such a deduction is legally untenable in the eye of law.