FAO NO.4963 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO NO.4963 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.10.2011 Amar Devi and another ....Appellants Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Navdeep Chhabra, Advocate for the appellants Mr.Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for respondent No.1-Insurance Company None for respondent No.2. Ms.Geeta Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3. ***** Jitendra Chauhan, J.(Oral) CM No. 21377 CII of 2010 Despite notice, reply has not been filed as yet. For the reasons enumerated in the application, delay of 169 days in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. FAO No. 4963 of 2010 The claimants/appellants have preferred the instant appeal for enhancement of compensation as awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Ferozepur vide award dated 15.4.2009, on account of death FAO NO.4963 of 2010 (O&M) 2 of Surinder Kumar alias Soni, son of the appellants/claimants. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the learned Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of compensation on account of death of Surinder Kumar alias Soni son of the appellants, who was the only bread earner in the family. Further contends that the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.27,00/- per mensum, he was engaged in dairy farming and was earning Rs.10,000/- per mensum. Further the learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier as 12, which is also on the lower side. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent- Insurance Company has opposed the submission of the appellants and has prayed for maintaining the award passed by the learned Tribunal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully. From the perusal of the case file, it emerges that there is no dispute regarding the death of Surinder Singh alias Soni son of the appellants in the accident, which took place on 5.3.2008, which is proved on record. As per the statements of the witnesses and Ex.P2 FIR No.75 dated 6.3.2008, under Sections 279/304-A of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Sadar Jalalabad regarding the said accident. Regarding the income of the deceased, the appellants led the oral testimony that the deceased was earning ` 10,000/- per month by selling milk, but they have not produced any documentary evidence in this regard. No receipt / registers or any other proof in this context was produced on record. Without any documentary proof, the court cannot presume that he was earning FAO NO.4963 of 2010 (O&M) 3 ` 10,000/- per month. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed his income at `27,00/- per month taking him as a casual labourer. The dependents are parents, therefore, the learned Tribunal applied deduction of 1/3rd of his income. The deceased was 31 years old at the time of accident. He was bachelor. Therefore, the learned Tribunal after considering the age of the dependents has rightly applied the multiplier of 12. No other material point has been urged or agitated either by the counsel. In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed being bereft of any merit. 12.10.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE