1 S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1814/2000. Smt.Sumitra Devi & Ors. VS Kan Singh & Ors. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1814/2000. Smt.Sumitra Devi and Others. VERSUS Kan Singh and Others. 11.11.2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Mr.K.N.Tiwari, for the appellants. Mr.Rishipal Agarwal, for the respondent No.3. ***** Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the award of the learned Tribunal and the record of the case. This appeal has been preferred by the claimants who are wife and other dependents of the deceased Satyaprakash who died in a motor accident on 08.04.1993. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned Tribunal has erred in computing the age of the deceased as 50 years. He submits that the learned Tribunal has taken into account the age of the deceased as 50 years on the basis of the entry in the Post Mortem Report wherein 2 S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1814/2000. Smt.Sumitra Devi & Ors. VS Kan Singh & Ors. the age of the deceased has been mentioned as 50 years. He submits that so far as the entry in the Post Mortem Report is concerned, the same has been recorded at the instance of the police officials who took the deceased after he met with the accident and the same has not been recorded at the instances of the claimants or any family member of the deceased. He submits that after the closure of the evidence, the appellants had produced before the learned Tribunal the copy of the electoral roll of the year 1993, the year when the deceased met with the accident, which is available on record at page C-13/9 wherein the age of the deceased Satyaprakash son of Radhakishan has been mentioned as 42 years. He submits that the claimant/appellant No.1, widow of the deceased, has deposed as AW-1 that the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 42 years and that stands corroborated from the entry in the electoral roll which was filed after closure of the evidence and fall within the scope of a public record not requiring formal proof. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the said electoral roll has not been marked as exhibit in the trial and, therefore, the same cannot be 3 S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1814/2000. Smt.Sumitra Devi & Ors. VS Kan Singh & Ors. read for the purpose of evidence. I have considered the aforesaid submission and I am of the view that the strict rules of evidence cannot be applied in the case of the trial of the motor accident claim case. Even otherwise, the electoral roll is a public record/document not requiring formal proof. In the instant case, vide an application dated 05.02.1998, the said electoral roll was filed by the claimants before the learned Tribunal prior to the passing of the award which was heard by the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal after considering the rival contentions allowed the application filed by the claimants and had taken on record the document, copy of the electoral roll wherein the age of the deceased has been mentioned as 42 years. No evidence in rebuttal was led by the respondents. I am, therefore, of the view that the said piece of evidence can be looked into for the determination of the age of the deceased as the said document relates to the period immediately preceding the accident i.e. the year 1993, when the accident took place. The wife 4 S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1814/2000. Smt.Sumitra Devi & Ors. VS Kan Singh & Ors. of the deceased has deposed in her statement as well as in the claim petition that the age of the deceased was 42 years at the time of the accident and, therefore, the said statement and the averments made in the petition stands corroborated by the aforesaid piece of evidence. In that view of the matter, I am inclined accept the age of the deceased in the year 1993, the time of accident, as 42 years as against 50 years which has been held by the learned Tribunal merely on the basis of the Post Mortem Report for which the claimants cannot be responsible as the said entry was made at the instance of the police officials who took the deceased to the hospital. Though, the accident is of the year 1993 when the provisions of the second schedule had not been incorporated in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, nonetheless, for the purpose of taking the multiplier, I am inclined to accept the multiplier as given in the aforesaid schedule. So far as the multiplier for the persons between the age group of 40 to 45 years is concerned, the multiplier of 15 has been prescribed in 5 S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1814/2000. Smt.Sumitra Devi & Ors. VS Kan Singh & Ors. the aforesaid schedule. Likewise, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt.Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 has also prescribed a similar multiplier for the persons within the age group of 40 to 45 years. In that view of the matter, the computation for the purpose of compensation on account of loss of earning and on the basis of the finding that the deceased contributed Rs.2,100/- per month towards the family is assessed as follows:- Rs.2,100/- X 12 X 15 = Rs.3,78,000/- The appellants have been paid under the aforesaid head in the award an amount of Rs.3,02,400/- which is liable to be deducted from the aforesaid amount. The balance amount which is the enhanced amount comes to Rs.75,600/-. The appeal is, therefore, allowed to the extent that the appellant shall be entitled to the enhanced amount of Rs.75,600/- with interest @ 6% p.a. w.e.f. 6 S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1814/2000. Smt.Sumitra Devi & Ors. VS Kan Singh & Ors. the date of filing of this appeal i.e. 04.01.2000 upto the date of its realization. This amount shall be paid by means of demand draft in favour of the claimants before the learned Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. (DALIP SINGH),J. Solanki DS, Jr.P.A.