JUDGMENT :

J.R. Midha, J.

1. The appellants have challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs. 2,42,382.16 along with interest @ 9% per annum from 30th October, 2013 has been awarded to appellants. The appellants seek enhancement of the award amount.

2. The accident dated 08th October, 2008 resulted in the death of Naveen. The deceased was aged 23 years at the time of the accident and was survived by his parents who claimed compensation. As per the claim petition, the deceased was self employed as a Contractor earning Rs. 55,000/- to Rs. 60,000/- per month.

3. Appellant No. 1 is the mother of the deceased who appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and deposed that the deceased was working as a Manager under a Government Contractor and drawing a salary of Rs. 30,000/- per month. She further deposed that she was dependent upon the deceased as well as her husband. She proved the Ration Card, Election Card, Matric Certificate as well as the passbook of the savings bank account of the deceased as Ex. PW-1/9 to PW-1/12. PW-2 is the eyewitness and he deposed that the deceased was hit by the offending vehicle (Dumper) bearing No. HR-63A-0270 from behind in front of NDPL Office near Plywood Factory, Karala, Delhi-110081 on 08th October, 2008 at 04:05 PM and the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Dumper. PW-3 deposed that the deceased was working in his construction company as a Supervisor since 16th April, 2004 at a salary of Rs. 12,000/- per month besides expenses of petrol, mobile and other miscellaneous expenses. PW-3 produced the certificate, Ex. PW-1/6. He further deposed that he had shown the salary of employees in his Income Tax Return. He produced the Income Tax Return for the assessment year 2009-2010 along with the statement of accounts as Ex. PW-3/1. PW-3 in cross examination deposed that he was paying the salary in cash against vouchers but the vouchers for 2008 were not traceable. He further deposed that he is an Income Tax Assessee since 1998 and he can produce the Income Tax Record for the relevant period.

4. The Claims Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing No. HR-63A-0270 driven by respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured by respondent No. 3. The Claims Tribunal held that PW-2, father of the deceased, was working with the Delhi Police as Sub-Inspector and was, therefore, not dependent upon the deceased. The Claims Tribunal further held that petitioner No. 1, mother of the deceased, cannot be said to be dependent upon the deceased as her husband was employed with the Delhi Police. The Claims Tribunal held that the appellants were not entitled to compensation for loss of dependency but only to compensation for loss of the estate in terms of the principles laid down in Keith Rowe v. Prashant Sugar, 2011 ACJ 1734.

5. The Claims Tribunal held that the income of the deceased has not been duly proved. The appellants claimed in the claim petition that the deceased was self employed as a Contractor earning Rs. 55,000/- to Rs. 60,000/- per month. PW-1, mother of the deceased, deposed in the witness box that the deceased was working as a Manager under a Government Contractor earning Rs. 30,000/- per month whereas PW-3 deposed that the deceased was working in a company as a Supervisor drawing a salary of Rs. 12,000/- per month but he could not produce any document to show the employment or the payment of salary. The Claims Tribunal did not believe the salary certificate, Ex. PW-1/6 issued by PW-3 in the absence of any documentary proof of employment. The Claims Tribunal, therefore, took the minimum wages of Rs. 4,131/- per month as income of the deceased, added 40% towards future prospects, applied the multiplier of 18 and awarded 15% as loss of estate to the appellants. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of love and affection