PRABHJOT SINGH AND OTHERS v. TARA SINGH AND ANOTHER

Mr. Sahil Soi, Advocate, Present: Mr. Sahil Soi, Advocate, for the appellants. for the appellants. Mr. G. S. Dhaliwal, Advocate, Mr. G. S. Dhaliwal, Advocate, for the respondent. for the respondent. **** **** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J.

1. claimants The present appeal has been filed by the appellants–claimants The present appeal has been filed by the appellants The present appeal has been filed by the appellants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Motor seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Motor seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Motor seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kapurthala (hereinafter “ Accident Claims Tribunal, Kapurthala (hereinafter “the Tribunal”), vide award ”), vide award dated 05.01.2002, whereby a sum of ₹3,97,000/ dated 05.01.2002, whereby a sum of was granted on account of the 3,97,000/- was granted on account of the death of Saravjit Singh, father of the appellant No.1, in the motor vehicular death of Saravjit Singh, father of the appellant No.1, in the motor vehicular death of Saravjit Singh, father of the appellant No.1, in the motor vehicular death of Saravjit Singh, father of the appellant No.1, in the motor vehicular and negligent driving of respondent accident dated 15.02.1998, due to rash and negligent driving of respondent and negligent driving of respondent accident dated 15.02.1998, due to rash No.1.

2. claimants contended that the Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants contended that the Learned counsel for the appellants Learned counsel for the appellants learned Tribunal gravely erred in assessing the monthly income of the learned Tribunal gravely erred in assessing the monthly income of the learned Tribunal gravely erred in assessing the monthly income of the learned Tribunal gravely erred in assessing the monthly income of the 2 , despite overwhelming Saravjit Singh at a meagre sum of Rs.4,500/-, despite overwhelming Saravjit Singh at a meagre sum of Rs.4,500/ deceased-Saravjit Singh at a meagre sum of Rs.4,500/ documentary and oral evidence on record establishing that the deceased was documentary and oral evidence on record establishing that the deceased was documentary and oral evidence on record establishing that the deceased was documentary and oral evidence on record establishing that the deceased was employed in Italy as a Golf Gardener/Housekeeper and was earning employed in Italy as a Golf Gardener/Housekeeper and was earning employed in Italy as a Golf Gardener/Housekeeper and was earning employed in Italy as a Golf Gardener/Housekeeper and was earning per month from an income of 10,00,000 Italian Lira, approximately Rs.30,000/- per month from an income of 10,00,000 Italian Lira, per month from an income of 10,00,000 Italian Lira, approximately Rs.30,000/ bank and post office passbooks, work as duly proved through Exs. A2 to A5, bank and post office passbooks, work bank and post office passbooks, work as duly proved through Exs. A2 to A5,

6. It was further contended that no evidence permit and the testimony of PW-6. It was further contended that no evidence 6. It was further contended that no evidence permit and the testimony of PW was led by the respondents to contradict the aforesaid evidence was led by the respondents and, therefore, to contradict the aforesaid evidence and, therefore, the income of the deceased deserved to be reassessed in accordance with the the income of the deceased deserved to be reassessed in accordance with the the income of the deceased deserved to be reassessed in accordance with the the income of the deceased deserved to be reassessed in accordance with the evidence available on record. Furthermore it was submitted that the learned evidence available on record. Furthermore it was submitted that the learned evidence available on record. Furthermore it was submitted that the learned evidence available on record. Furthermore it was submitted that the learned Tribunal wrongly applied the multiplier of 13 instead of 14 applicable to the age Tribunal wrongly applied the multiplier of 13 instead of 14 applicable to the age Tribunal wrongly applied the multiplier of 13 instead of 14 applicable to the age Tribunal wrongly applied the multiplier of 13 instead of 14 applicable to the age Sarla Verma vs Delhi 45 years in terms of the law laid down in Sarla Verma vs Delhi 45 years in terms of the law laid down in group of 41-45 years in terms of the law laid down in