JUDGMENT :

ARCHANA PURI, J.

1. These are two appeals filed by the appellants-claimants, thereby, seeking enhancement of the compensation, awarded on account of death of Manoj Goyal, in a motor vehicular accident.

2. Suffice to consider that the accident had taken place on 25.02.2011. On appraisal of the evidence, brought on record, learned Tribunal had held about the accident to have taken place, due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration No.PB-02P-9525, driven by respondent No.1-Sarwan Singh and the same resulted into death of Manoj Goyal.

3. Learned Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence, brought on record, considered the age of the deceased to be 30 years, at the time of accident, as his date of birth was 16.06.1980, as evident from the educational certificates Ex.P9 and Ex.P10. The claim petition was filed by father, mother as well as widow of the deceased. So far as, father of the deceased is concerned, learned Tribunal had concluded that there was no evidence, about the father to be dependent upon the income of the deceased and as such, dismissed the claim petition qua father of the deceased, whereas, it held the widow and mother to be entitled to compensation.

4. It was categoric claim of the claimants before the Tribunal that deceased Manoj Goyal was doing financing work in the name of Mahima Finance and his earning were Rs.25,000/- per month. Even though, during the course of evidence, the income tax returns Ex.P4 to Ex.P6, for the assessment years 2011-12, 2010-2011 and 2009-10 respectively, were brought on record, but however, learned Tribunal held that no reliance upon the same, can be placed as these returns were never annexed with the statement of account and there is no evidence, how the deceased was deriving the income. Even though, it was categoric claim of the claimants that deceased was doing financing work, under the name of Mahima Finance, but however, considering no cogent evidence, to have been brought on record, the said version was discarded. However, considering the deceased to be B.A. Degree holder, he was treated as skilled worker and the earnings were assessed as Rs.6000/- per month. Thereupon, 1/3rd was deducted, on the count of ‘personal and living expenses’. The monthly dependency was taken as Rs.4000/-, annual whereof is Rs.48,000/-. Multiplier of ‘16’ was applied and the loss of dependency was worked upon as Rs.48,000x16=Rs.7,68,000/-. Besides the aforesaid, addition of Rs.9500/- was made, on the count of ‘loss of estate, consortium and funeral expenses’. Thus, total compensation was awarded to the extent of Rs.7,77,500/-, which was rounded off as Rs.7,78,000/-.

5. Being aggrieved, parents of the deceased have filed FAO-1429-2013 and widow of the deceased has filed FAO-6376-2012 and all the claimants have sought enhancement of the compensation.

6. Even, the parents of deceased in FAO-1429-2013 have filed an application i.e. CM-8140-CII-2013 for additional evidence, to prove on record the statement of account, along with income tax returns, for the assessment years 2011-12, 2010-11 and 2009-10.

7. Heard on the aforesaid application, together with the main appeal. Considering the claimants to be having an opportunity to lead evidence and when, more particularly, they themselves had tendered into evidence, copies of the income tax record, which are Ex.P4 to Ex.P6, therefore, at the relevant time, they had an opportunity to lead the evidence and prove the income tax record, but however, the same was not availed and therefore, the claimants did not act diligently. Now, by way of filing of the aforesaid application, they want to adjust their evidence, in accord with the observations made by the Tribunal, in the impugned Award and to fill up the lacunae. Considering the same, no case is made out to allow the said application and hence, the same is hereby dismissed, 

8. Proceeding further, it ought to be considered that no appeal, as such, has been filed by any of the respondents, upon who