1 S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1828/2000. Mangi Lal & Ors. VS Santosh Kumar & Ors. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1828/2000. Mangi Lal and Others. VERSUS Santosh Kumar and Others. 11.11.2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Mr.Vinay Mathur, for the appellants. Mr.Alok Garg, for the respondent. ***** Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the award as well as the record of the learned Tribunal. The appellant has challenged the award dated 30.06.2000 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs.2,63,000/- for the death of the son of the appellants. The accident occurred on 31.07.1999 wherein Raju son of the appellants No.1 and 2 aged 20 years, who was a Dhobi by profession, met with a motor accident involving a motorcycle bearing registration No.RJ-14/22M-9975 being driven by the respondent No.1 Santosh Kumar. The said motorcycle was insured with the respondent No.3, Insurance Company. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that 2 S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1828/2000. Mangi Lal & Ors. VS Santosh Kumar & Ors. the learned Tribunal has committed an error in not taking into account the evidence led by the appellant to show the total income of the deceased. He has drawn the attention of the court to the Exhibits-25 and 26 which were produced and proved by AW-1 Mangilal, the appellant No.1. These documents (Exhibits-25 and 26) are two certificates which were issued by the owners of two different factories in Ambabadi wherein they have certified that the deceased used to wash the clothes of the workmen employed in their factories and they are paying an amount of Rs.1,350/- and Rs.1,150/- per month respectively to the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that apart from the above income of Rs.2,500/-, the deceased was also earning from the shop where he used to wash and iron clothes. He, therefore, submits that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in computing the income of the deceased as only Rs.2,000/- in the facts and circumstances of this case. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that the compensation awarded to the appellants, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be inadequate and is in the facts and circumstances of the case a “just compensation” because the learned Tribunal has adopted a multiplier of 16 whereas the age of the appellants who are the parents of the deceased in the instant case is 46 and 45 years respectively at the time of accident and, therefore, in 3 S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1828/2000. Mangi Lal & Ors. VS Santosh Kumar & Ors. the instant case the age of the parents of the deceased was to be taken into consideration and the multiplier as prescribed for the age group of 45 to 50 years ought to have been taken into account whereas the learned Tribunal has taken into account the multiplier with regard to the age of the deceased. He, therefore, submits that in place of the multiplier of 16 a multiplier of 13 ought to have been taken into account and if the aforesaid correct multiplier of 13 is adopted then the compensation awarded on the aforesaid basis of the multiplier of 16 cannot be said to be inadequate. I have considered the rival submissions and I am of the view that the first requirement is of coming to the finding with regard to the earning of the deceased. The certificates (Exhibits 25 and 26) which have been issued by the two companies for whom the deceased used to work and wash the uniforms of the workmen, etc., cannot be ignored in the facts and circumstances of the present case. There is no reason to disbelieve the aforesaid certificates. It was always open for the respondent to have verified this fact, since these certificates have been issued on the letterheads of the companies which are in Jaipur itself and having the infrastructure and administrative set up at Jaipur on the address given therein. Thus, it was always open for the respondents to have verified about the aforesaid fact. Moreover, none from the side of the Insurance Company has entered into the witness box to counter or rebut the evidence led by the claimants. In that view of the matter, the evidence in the form of Exhibits-25 and 26 cannot be disregarded. 4 S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1828/2000. Mangi Lal & Ors. VS Santosh Kumar & Ors. Apart from the above, it can also not be disputed that the deceased must have earned from the shop in question by working there. The claimants have stated that the deceased was earning Rs.4,500/- per month. Even if a very conservative approach is adopted while taking into account the certificates (Exhibits-25 and 26) where the companies have stated that they used to pay Rs.1,350/- and 1,150/- per month to the deceased for washing the clothes of their workmen, it cannot be disputed that the total income of the deceased at the time of accident must be about Rs.3,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal, therefore, erred in holding that the income of the deceased was only Rs.2,000/- per month. Having arrived at the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- this court would deduct 1/3rd from the same towards personal expenses which the deceased used to incur upon himself and thus, his contribution towards family is Rs.2,000/-. On the basis of the above and taking a multiplier of 13, which is prescribed for the age group of 45 to 50 years since the age of the parents of the deceased was 46 and 45 respectively at the time of accident, the total compensation under the head of loss of income is as follows:- Rs.2,000/- X 12 X 13 = Rs.3,12,000/-. Though there is no appeal from the side of the respondents with regard to the multiplier adopted by the learned Tribunal, however, this court feels that with a view to arrive at a correct figure of “just compensation”, the multiplier in the facts and 5 S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1828/2000. Mangi Lal & Ors. VS Santosh Kumar & Ors. circumstances needs to be corrected. The learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.2,56,000/- under the head of loss of income to the appellants on account of the death of their son. Thus, the amount of Rs.2,56,000/- is liable to be deducted from the aforesaid computed amount of Rs.3,12,000/-. The appellants would, therefore, be entitled to an additional amount of Rs.56,000/-. Consequently, the appeal succeeds to the aforesaid extent. The appellants shall be entitled to Rs.56,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. w.e.f. the date of filing of this appeal which is 09.10.2000 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.