Mr. K. Kannan J.: - All the three appeals relate to claims for compensation for death and injuries suffered in a motor accident. The claims are for enhancement of compensation determined in the respective cases. FAO No.5437 of 2010 is in relation to a claim for compensation for death of a person Sandeep. The claimants are parents and the widow. The father of the deceased gave evidence to the effect that the deceased was 30 years of age and he was an income tax assessee. He has stated that he was himself a retired teacher drawing Rs.7,000/- per month as pension. He claimed that his son was working in M/s Arya Ribbon Company, Sonepat and he was also working as a commission agent for LIC and earned Rs.24,000/- per month as income from both the sources. In the cross-examination, the witness admitted that there is nothing to show that his son was assessed to income tax and also had no evidence to tender with regard to nature of employment. The Tribunal, therefore, took the income to be Rs.4,000/- per month, made a deduction of 1/3rd and while adopting a multiplier of 17 as per the formula prescribed in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC [2009(3) Law Herald (SC) 2107 : 2010(1) Law Herald (Acc.) (SC) 65] : 2009(6) SCC 121, determined the loss of dependence at Rs.5,40,600/-. It further added Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and loss to estate and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium. The total compensation payable was assessed at Rs.5,60,000/-.

2. In the grounds of appeal, it is urged that the Tribunal ought to have provided for a higher compensation taking the income to be Rs.24,000/-. I cannot find any reason to modify the decision with regard to the income earning capacity of the deceased with no evidence at all tendered with reference to his employment in a private company or his alleged income as a LIC agent. It could have been definitely possible for the claimants to adduce evidence regarding both the sources of income by producing some documents to show that he had canvassed any policy in LIC as an agent or secured some evidence from the employer that he was working in the private company. With no such attempt, the Tribunal was justified in taking the income notionally at Rs.4,000/- and provided for compensation in the manner that it did. Even the conventional heads of claims have been properly assessed. The contention made by the counsel is that no provision was made for transportation. There could be no modification for the only fact that head of claim namely for transportation was not provided when there was no particular evidence as regards the same. I find no error in the assessment of compensation for death of the male and dismiss the appeal in FAO No.5437 of 2010 for enhancement.

3. FAO No.5439 of 2010 is with reference to death of a child aged 5 years. The claimant was the mother. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.75,000/-. The determination of compensation for death of child where it is difficult to project the prospects of income or the support that the child could have given to the parent. Having regard to the fact that the death has occurred in the accident dated 15.12.2007 and going by some of the pronouncements of the Supreme Court relating to death of a child where it was also provided for special damages for Rs.75,000/- and taking the notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum, I would increase the compensation at another Rs.2,25,000/- and make the compensation payable at Rs.3 lacs to the mother. The amount in excess of what has already been assessed by the Tribunal shall attract interest @7.5% from the date of petition till the date of payment. The liability shall be in the same manner as determined by the Tribunal. The award stands modified and the appeal in FAO No.5439 of 2010 is allowed to the above extent.

4. The appeal in FAO No.5438 of 2010 is for enhancement of compensation for injuries suffered in the accident. The Tribunal had provided for a compensation of Rs.17,110/- that included Rs.10,11