JUDGMENT
Abhay Gohil, J.
1. This is claimants appeal for enhancement of compensation under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 11.12.2000 passed by Third Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior. In Claim Case No. 50 of 1995 the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 3,80,000 for the death of the deceased Purshottam Lal.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Purshottam Lal was working as a Training Superintendent in the Industrial Training Centre, Gwalior. On 13.2.1995 at about 5 p.m. he was going from office to his home on his scooter No. MP 07-K 1968 and one G.S. Nirmal was sitting as a pillion rider. When they reached near square of Gola Ka Mandir, a bus bearing No. MP 07-B 9802 was coming from the side of Mela. The bus was driven by respondent No. 1. It is alleged that the driver was driving the bus rashly and negligently. Bus came from behind without giving any horn and dashed the scooter from its back as a result he fell down and became unconscious. The crime was registered at the Police Station, Gola Ka Mandir. He was taken to Madhav Dispensary, from where he was referred to Neurosurgery Department of J.A. Group of Hospitals. On 13.2.1995 at 7 p.m. in the evening he died. Claimants filed this claim petition. Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 3,80,000, against which claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on record. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that Claims Tribunal has not considered the income of the deceased properly. The monthly salary of the deceased was Rs. 7,042, but the Tribunal has considered the annual income as Rs. 60,000 without any basis and also deducted the amount towards income tax and professional tax and has assessed the income of Rs. 60,000 and dependency at Rs. 40,000, which is wrong. He has also submitted that proper multiplier has not been applied. In reply learned counsel for the respondents supported the award.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the documents on the record. Certificate of salary, Exh. P8, has been produced. According to this certificate, the salary of the deceased was Rs. 7,042 per month. If the salary of the deceased was Rs. 7,042 per month, then this contention of the court that he was required to pay income tax and professional tax and considered the total annual income of Rs. 60,000 is wrong. If he was entitled for the payment of income tax, then he was also entitled for so many other standard deductions and without calculating the payment of income tax after allowing the standard deduction in the year 1995 the salary cannot be reduced for the purposes of awarding compensation. Therefore, we hold that the monthly income was Rs. 7,042 and annual income of the deceased was around Rs. 84,000. After deducting one-third amount towards personal expenses, the amount of dependency would come to Rs. 56,000. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 8. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that since the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the age of the applicant was 51, therefore, multiplier of 11 would be applicable. In fact there is dispute about the age of the deceased. Sanjeev Kumar, who is the son of the deceased has stated that age of his father was around 50 years. In the M.L.C. report, the age has been mentioned as 55 years, in the postmortem report the same has been mentioned as 50 years. Admittedly, the deceased was in government service. The son of the applicant was knowing the correct date of birth and age of the deceased, but they have not produced any evidence, nor they have produced the service book, nor obtained any certificate that what date of birth of the deceased has been recorded in the government record. Therefore, adverse inference can be drawn against him for suppressing the material about the correct age and date of birth of the deceased. In the M.L.C. report age has been mentioned as 55 years, therefore, in view of the conflicting evidence we hold that his age was above 55 years and Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 9, which is not proper. We have also drawn the adverse inference against the appellants as it was the burden on the appellants-claimants to produce the evidence regarding the age of the deceased and prove the correct age as he was a government servant. The claimants cannot take advantage of not proving the fact, which was in their possession and at their command. Thus considering the provision of Order 41, rule 33 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, that Tribunal can assess the evidence and can award proper compensation after applying proper multiplier, we hold that looking to the evidence on record the multiplier of 8 would be the proper multiplier in this case. On application of this multiplier of 8 on the dependency amount of Rs. 56,000, the total compensation would come to Rs. 4,48,000. The claimants are also entitled for further sum of Rs. 22,000 in the various heads, such as, loss of consortium, loss to estate, funeral expenses, etc. Thus, the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs. 4,70,000.
5. Consequently, this appeal is allowed. Amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs. 3,80,000 to Rs. 4,70,000 (rupees four lakh seventy thousand). Enhanced amount will also carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of this appeal. Counsel’s fee Rs. 1,000, if certified.