1 23 S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.374/2007. (Madu Devi & Anr. Vs. Mangla Ram & Ors.) Date of Order :: 14th February 2007. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Shiv Prakash Bhati, for the appellants. ... BY THE COURT: This appeal has been submitted by the claimants against the award dated 18.03.2006 made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Balotra insofar it relates to Claim Case No.97/2005 seeking enhancement over the amount of Rs.2,35,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards compensation on account of accidental death of 23 years old Shanker Ram. It appears that before the Tribunal, the claim for compensation was made by claimant No.1, Madu Devi, the mother of deceased while joining claimant No.2, Vikram as an alleged adopted son of deceased. The Tribunal has disbelieved the case of adoption of the claimant No.2 and has taken only the mother of the deceased as his legal representative and dependent. The Tribunal has not accepted the assertion of the claimants about the deceased earning Rs.6,000/- per month while working on mines and another Rs.28,000/- per annum in agriculture for want of any cogent corroborative evidence; and putting an estimate on the income of the deceased and after deducting one-third on his 2 personal expenditure has taken loss of dependency for the claimant No.1 at Rs.2,400/- per month, i.e. Rs.28,800/- per annum; and in view of her age at 55 years has capitalised by application of multiplier of 8 to assess pecuniary loss at Rs.2,30,400/-; and allowing Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,600/- towards loss of love and services of the deceased, has made the award of compensation in the sum of Rs.2,35,000/-. Assailing the award aforesaid, it has been strenuously contended by learned counsel Mr. S.P. Bhati appearing for the appellants that the Tribunal has erred : (i) in applying a multiplier of 8 only though the age of the deceased was 23 years and in view of his age, multiplier of 17 minimum ought to have been allowed; and (ii) in rejecting the case of of adoption of the claimant No.2 Vikram despite unrebutted evidence of the claimants including the testimony of Deva Ram, natural father of the claimant No.2. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the appellants and having examined the award impugned in its totality, this Court is clearly of opinion that the submissions do not merit acceptance. So far the question of adoption is concerned, noticeable it is that the deceased was in the young age of 23 3 years and no plausible reason has been assigned for which he would be taking up the proposition of adopting a child at that stage of his life. Of course, it has been suggested that his wife remained ill and then expired; and that after her demise the deceased adopted the son of his brother; but for want of cogent and reliable corroborative evidence, the Tribunal cannot be said to have erred in disbelieving such an unnatural proposition. From the observations made by the Tribunal, it is apparent that such suggestion of adoption of the claimant No.2 Vikram is full of contradictions and remains unbelievable. Mother of the deceased has stated in her cross-examination that Vikram was adopted in the life-time of Shanker but then stated that he was adopted after the death of Shanker ! One is left to wonder as to who adopted for the deceased Shanker and how ? Then, she stated that there was no writing available regarding the adoption but AW-5 Deva Ram, natural father of claimant No.2, suggested that an entry in relation to such adoption according to the caste customs was made in “Raoji-ki-Chopari” of village Keru. No such documentary evidence has been produced on record. For the ration card Ex.18 produced by the claimants the Tribunal has observed that the same does not carry the date of issue. This Court is satisfied that the Tribunal has rightly rejected the case of adoption of claimant No.2 by the 4 deceased; and the considerations adopted by the Tribunal do not suffer from any error. Having examined the matter in its totality, this Court is moreover satisfied that the minor claimant-appellant No.2 has been put forward in this case only in order to seek excessive compensation. The conduct of the claimant, mother of the deceased, does not inspire confidence and it appears that she has not been forthright while claiming compensation. It is to be imbibed that claims for compensation are considered for providing relief to the suffers or the victims of the results of vehicular accidents; and it inheres in the process of awarding such compensation that the claimants' own conduct must not be questionable. When the claimant is found to be deliberately putting forth a false case, like the present one where a child of the brother of the victim is put forward as his alleged adopted son, there does not appear any justification to take liberal view of the matter in regard to an insincere claimant. Yet the Tribunal has proceeded rather liberally while quantifying compensation in this case; and the claim for enhancement thereupon remains wholly bereft of substance. The submission for application of multiplier with reference to the age of the deceased deserves to be rejected as fundamentally misconceived. The age of mother of the 5 deceased has been shown at about 55 years and in that view of the matter, the Tribunal was justified in applying the multiplier of 8. On the other hand, the Tribunal has of course erred, but in favour of the claimant, by putting estimate rather higher on the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,600/- and then, by taking entire of two-third of such estimated income towards loss of contribution. In view of the younger age of the deceased and likelihood of his having own family in future and in the overall family set-up, for the mother having other sons too, not more than one-half of the estimated income of deceased could have been taken towards the loss of contribution for the mother. Viewed in that light and looking to the conduct of the claimant, this Court is satisfied that the amount of compensation as allowed at Rs.2,35,000/- is itself higher than that of just compensation admissible in this case. Claim for enhancement in this case could only be rejected as rather preposterous. The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed summarily. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. //Mohan//