Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—At the risk and consequences of the appellants, the service on respondent no.2 is dispensed with.

2. This appeal was filed by the claimants for enhancement way back on 6.9.1993 aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal dated 5.6.1993, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,34,400 as compensation. The claimants have filed the claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.4,51,200 on the ground that on 2.10.1983, deceased Gharsi Ram was hit by a truck no.DHL 3067, which was coming from Shahjahanpur. The respondent no.1-driver was driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner. Due to the accident, Gharsi Ram died on the spot.

3. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that income of the deceased that was claimed before the Tribunal was Rs.1,000. It was claimed that every month he used to contribute Rs.600 to the family, save Rs.200 for marriage of his daughter and was spending a sum of Rs.200 on himself. The Tribunal has erred in law in accepting his contribution to the family in the sum of Rs.350 and for 32 years. The deceased was doing the work of gas welding and tyre/ puncture repairing etc. His income indeed was more than Rs.1200 as has been proved by witness AW-1 Sanwal Ram which is also supported by AW-2 Phool Chand, AW-3 Kalu Ram and AW-5 Mahaveer Prasad. As against this, no evidence in rebuttal has been adduced by the respondent-non claimants/insurance company. Counsel for the appellants has argued that these witnesses have stated that age of the deceased at the relevant time was 24-25 years. Even in the postmortem report, his age was indicated 22 years, therefore, there was not justify-cation for the Tribunal to hold him 28 years old and computing the contribution for 32 years. No amount has been awarded for pain and suffering, loss of love and affection to the child and father and mother.

4. Counsel for the appellants has relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC) and argued that in case the numbers of dependents being 4, the deduction should be confined to only 1/4th and computation of income should be made by applying the multiplier of 18. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 32 taking the age to be 60 years on the basis of age of 28 in view of ratio of judgment of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation vs. Susamma Thomas (Miss) & Ors.: (1994) 2 SCC 176 = RLW 1995(2) SC 19.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the appeal and submitted that accident is of the year 1983 and in those years, it cannot be accepted that the deceased would be earning Rs.1,000 or Rs.1,200 per month by doing the work of gas welding/tyre/puncture repairing etc. Learned counsel argued that mere multiplying the number of witnesses does not substitute the requirement of proof regarding income of the deceased.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

7. Although it is an old matter, but nevertheless, the evidence that has been adduced by the claimant in the shape of statement of AW-1 Sanwal Ram, AW-2 Phool Chand, AW-3 Kalu Ram and AW-5 Mahaveer Prasad does not justify the view of the Tribunal that the deceased used to contribute only Rs.350 per month towards his family. Even if the Court takes Rs.1,000 as the income of the deceased by not supporting their statements that he was earning Rs.1200-Rs.1300 per month and deducts 1/4th towards self expenses of the deceased, his monthly contribution to the family would come to Rs.750/- as per the ratio of the judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, supra. However, after considering the monthly income to be Rs.750 and applying the multiplier of 18 considering the age of the deceased between the age group of 20-25 years as per the aforesaid judgment, the contribution to the family would come to Rs.1,62,000 (750x18x12). Since the widow has su

Click Here to Read the rest of this document