1 11 S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.970/2007. Anchi & Ors. Vs. Eliyas Khan & Anr. Date of Order :: 27th February 2007. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. S.K. Sankhla, for the appellants. ... BY THE COURT: For awarding compensation to the wife, four minor children and parents of about 27-28 years old vehicular accident victim Gopi Lal, the Tribunal has noticed the assertions of the wife of deceased that he was engaged in agriculture, that there was 76 bighas of land available in the name of her father-in-law Moola Ram, that the deceased was also cultivating other land on contract basis and selling the produce in the market, and that he was earning about Rs.8,000/- to 10,000/- per month. The Tribunal has: (i) noticed from Khasra Girdawari (Ex.13) that out of 76 bighas and 2 biswas of land, about 32 bighas was irrigated land in which father of the deceased was having one-half share and it was nowhere mentioned that the deceased Gopi Lal was cultivating the land; (ii) referred to the Bill (Ex.14) of sale of agriculture 2 produce dated 24.07.2005 and found it unreliable for the victim having expired on 14.07.2005; (iii) referred to a Slip (Ex.15) towards sale of the produce that was not mentioned in Khasra Girdawari (Ex.13); and (iv) also noticed that there was no cogent evidence available on record to believe that the deceased was taking any other land on contract basis and earning out of the same. In the overall circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has put an estimate on the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- and after deducting one-third on his personal expenditure and with application of maximum side multiplier of 18, has assessed pecuniary loss at Rs.6,48,000/-. The Tribunal has also allowed Rs.10,000/- to the wife of the deceased towards loss of consortium and Rs.5,000/- each to the other claimants towards non-pecuniary loss, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, and another Rs.2,000/- towards transportation; and, in this manner, has assessed total loss for the claimants at Rs.6,92,000/- and has also awarded interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application. The claimants feel aggrieved of the award aforesaid as being low and insufficient. It has been strenuously contended by the learned counsel for the claimant-appellants seeking enhancement that the estimate put by the Tribunal on the monthly income of the 3 deceased only at Rs.4,500/- is abnormally on the lower side and the Tribunal has been in error in discarding the component of income available to the deceased from out of the sale of agricultural produce as established on record and there was no reason for the Tribunal not to have accepted the unrebutted testimony of the wife of the deceased. The submissions aforesaid are lacking in strength for the fundamental reason that the claimants have failed to show that the deceased was having any agricultural land available with himself so as to consider it to be a definite source of income. There is no evidence on record to establish that the deceased was earning by cultivating other land on contract basis; and the land as referred by the claimants only belonged to the father of the deceased. Significantly, the father of the deceased, though joined as a claimant, chose not to appear in evidence. For want of cogent evidence on record, this Court is of opinion that even the estimate as put by the Tribunal on the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- appears to be rather on the higher side. The Tribunal has capitalised by the maximum side multiplier of 18 and has not restricted on awarding reasonable amount of compensation on any other score either. In the ultimate analysis, the award of compensation as made by the Tribunal in the sum of 4 Rs.6,92,000/- cannot be said to be falling short of just compensation admissible in this case and there appears no scope for enhancement. The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed summarily. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. //Mohan//