1 41 S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.220/2007. Naina Ram & Anr. Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors. Date of Order :: 17th January 2007. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Dhanpat Choudhary, for the appellants. ... BY THE COURT: For awarding compensation to the parents of the vehicular accident victim Raja Ram, about 20 years in age, for want of any cogent evidence on record, the Tribunal has put an estimate on the income of the deceased at Rs.2,400/- per month and after deduction one-third wherefrom on his personal expenditure and with application of multiplier of 13, has assessed pecuniary loss at Rs.2,49,600/-; and with addition of Rs.10,000/- towards non-pecuniary loss and Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal has made the award in the sum of Rs.2,69,600/- and has allowed interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim application. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the Tribunal has been in error in putting estimate on the income of the deceased rather on the lower side only at Rs.2,400/- per month and in any case, a minimum of Rs.3,000/- per month ought to have been taken towards 2 average income of the deceased. The submissions even if taken on their face value, the ultimate award made in the sum of Rs.2,69,600/- cannot be said to be too low or grossly inadequate in the fact situation of the present case. The entire of two-third of the estimated income of the deceased towards loss of contribution to the parents could not have been taken in view of the future uncertainties and uncertainties where the victim was an unmarried person and likelihood of his getting married in future and a larger part of his income getting diverted to his own family cannot be ruled out. Even if the average income of the deceased be taken at Rs.3,000/- per month, this Court is clearly of opinion that for the parents of the deceased, loss of contribution could not have been taken more than one-half of such estimated income. Then, the Tribunal has applied reasonably higher side multiplier of 13 in the context of the age of the parents of the deceased at about 50-47 years. In the ultimate analysis, this Court is satisfied that the award made by the Tribunal cannot be said to be grossly inadequate or insufficient so as to warrant interference in appeal. The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed summarily. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. //Mohan//