1 S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 698/2007 (Smt.Ratan Kanwar & ors. Vs. Shambhu Singh & ors.) Date of Order :: 22nd February 2007 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. D.S.Rathore for the appellant By way of this appeal against the award dated 17.01.2006 made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chittorgarh in Claim Case No.316/2004 the claimants seek enhancement over the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum awarded by the Tribunal as compensation on account of accidental death of Gokul Dan, about 53 years in age and said to be getting net salary of Rs.5,383/- per month while serving in Animal Husbandry Department of the Government of Rajasthan. For quantification of compensation to be awarded to the wife and two children of the victim Gokul Dan, the Tribunal has not accepted the assertion of the claimants about the age of victim at 50 years and has found that his age was stated at 53 years in the copy of ration card filed by the claimants, though not got exhibited; and has also referred to a salary certificate shown on behalf of the respondent-insurer that the date of birth of the victim was recorded as 01.01.1951 in his service record; and, therefore, has taken his age at 53 years 2 on the date of accident i.e., 30.01.2004. The Tribunal has found from the salary certificate Ex.9 that the deceased was getting gross salary of Rs.6,118/- per month and after deductions of Rs.735/-, his net income was Rs.5,383/- per month. Taking this as the base figure and deducting one- third, the Tribunal has taken monthly economic dependency of the claimants at Rs.3,588.67 i.e., Rs.43,064.04 per annum; and, with reference to seven years of service period left, has applied the multiplier of 7 to assess loss of contribution at Rs.3,01,448.28 rounded up to Rs.3,01,500/-. The Tribunal has observed that though a multiplier of 11 is provided under the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act for the victim in the age group of 50-55 years but the said Schedule was only of basic guideline and when the period of service of the victim is certain, the same is required to be kept in view to assess the loss of income; and in the present case for seven years of service of the deceased left, it was proper to calculate the loss of salary income for 7 years only. However, the Tribunal has proceeded to add an amount of Rs.58,500/- with reference to the fact that even after retirement, the victim was likely to earn from private practice. The Tribunal has further added a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards general damages allowing Rs.10,000/- to each of the three claimants towards loss of love, affection and guidance of the deceased 3 and another Rs.8,000/- to the wife towards loss of consortium and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. Assailing the award aforesaid as low and inadequate, it has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal has erred: (i) in estimating the age of the deceased at 53 years though the same was stated at 50 years in the post mortem report and so was stated by his wife AW-1 Smt.Ratan Kanwar; (ii) in taking net income of the deceased much lower than that shown by his salary certificate Ex.9; and (iii) in applying multiplier of 7 with mere reference to the remaining years of service though in view of the age of the deceased a multiplier of 13 ought to have been applied. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and having examined the impugned award in its totality, this Court is satisfied that the amount awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be lower than that of just compensation admissible in the fact situation of the present case. The estimate on the age of the deceased at 53 years does not appear suffering from any error of law or facts. When the deceased was in the government service, in the first place it was required of the claimants to adduce relevant proof of his age that ought to be available with them. Then, the observation made by the Tribunal seems justified that the 4 claimants have avoided exhibiting the copy of ration card filed by them on record only because it recorded the age of deceased at 53 years. When the claimants chose to conceal and avoided placing correct facts, the Tribunal cannot be faulted in finding the facts particularly from the undeniable document i.e., the ration card filed by the claimants themselves. It has not been suggested even in the memo of appeal that the date of birth of the deceased as shown by the insurer from his service record was not correct as a fact. The age of the deceased being 53 years, rather the claimants turn out to be not forthright in their submissions while claiming compensation. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal does not appear in error in taking net carry-home income of the deceased at Rs.5,383/- per month for the purpose of assessment of pecuniary loss. Though in the first instance application of multiplier of 7 to the figure of annual loss of contribution arrived after deduction of one-third of the estimated income might appear leading to a lower side assessment of pecuniary loss at Rs.3,01,500/-; but a close look at the award makes it clear that the Tribunal has provided for another component of likely income of the deceased even after retirement and has added another Rs.58,500/- towards pecuniary loss. Thus, on the whole, even if higher multiplier 5 as such has not been stated by the Tribunal, final assessment of pecuniary loss in the sum of Rs.3,60,000/- cannot be said to be insufficient or grossly inadequate. It is further noticed that the Tribunal has proceeded to allow rather excessive amount of Rs.40,000/- towards general damages while allowing Rs.10,000/- each to the children of the deceased and Rs.18,000/- to the wife towards non- pecuniary loss. In the ultimate analysis, the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- as allowed by the Tribunal cannot be said to be low or inadequate; and rules out any scope for enhancement. The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed summarily. MK (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.