ORDER
G.C. Garg, J.
1. This order will dispose of F.A.Os. 1410 and 1412 of 1996 filed against two separate awards dated 30.10.1995 of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal given in two separate claim petitions which arose out of the same accident.
2. Bachan Singh and Jaspal and few others were going from Kharar to village Manimajra for loading and unloading of goods in a Canter in which they were travelling under the contract of employment of the owner of the goods on 11.4.1993. The Canter was being driven by Niram Singh rashly and negligently and it was owned by respondent No. 3 A truck being driven by Amarjit Singh rashly and negligently and owned by Respondent No. 1 came from the side of Ludhiana and struck against the Canter. In this accident the Occupants of the Canter including Bachan Singh and Jaspal sustained multiple injuries. Bachan Singh died as a result of the injuries. Bhag Kaur widow of Bachan Singh filed a claim petition being M.A.C.T. Case No. 144 of 27.11.1993, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the death of Bachan Singh whereas Jaspal Singh filed separate claim petition being MACT Case No. 145 of 27.11.1993 claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident.
3. Learned Tribunal on a consideration of the matter assessed the dependency of the claimant Bhag Kaur on the deceased at Rs. 1,000/- per month and applied multiplier of eight and thus awarded a sum of Rs. 96,000/- as compensation besides another sum of Rs. 2,000/- on account of funeral expenses, for the death of Bachan Singh by his award dated 30.10.1995. As regards the other claim petition filed by Jaspal Singh, learned Tribunal by a separate award of the same date, awarded a sum of Rs. 8,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the accident and the medical treatment thereof.
4. Dissatisfied with the awards of the learned Tribunal, Bhag Kaur, the widow of Bachan Singh, and Jaspal Singh filed the instant two appeals F.A.Os. 1410 and 1412 of 1996 respectively seeking enhancement of compensation.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals submitted that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal for the death of Bachan Singh and for the injuries and medical expenses to Jaspal is on the lower side. Learned counsel specifically submitted that multiplier of 12 ought to have been applied while determining the amount of compensation for the death of Bachan Singh.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Appellant Bhag Kaur while appearing as a witness gave the age of her husband as 45 years. However, according to the post mortem report Exhibit P-1 produced in evidence, the age of deceased was indicated as 55 years. Learned Tribunal accepted the age of the deceased as 55 years as indicated in the post mortem report and thus multiplied the amount of annual dependency by eight. In my opinion the learned tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion, only on the basis of medical evidence, that the deceased was 55 years of age at the time of death. He should not have ignored the statement of claimant Bhag Kaur who is none else but the widow of the deceased and gave the age of her husband as 45 years. She was not cross- examined on the point of age of the deceased. Once the statement made in the examination-in-chief is not challenged in cross-examination, it is to be deemed to have been accepted. Thus, in the circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the deceased must be in the age group of 45 to 55 years at the time of the accident. It will thus be fair to apply a multiplier of ten. Learned Tribunal on appreciation of the evidence came to the conclusion that the deceased was a casual labourer and can be expected that he was contributing a sum of about Rs. 1,000/- per month to his family. In the facts of the case, this finding warrants no interference. Appellant Bhag Kaur thus would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 1,22,000/- i.e. (Rs. 1,000 x 12 x 10) = Rs. 1,20,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- already awarded by the learned Tribunal on account of funeral expenses etc. of the deceased. The entire amount of compensation shall be apportioned in the same manner as has been ordered by the learned Tribunal and paid with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till payment, minus the amount, if any, already received by the appellant Bhag Kaur. The award of learned Tribunal in the case of appellant Bhag Kaur is modified to the extent indicated above.
7. As regards the appeal of Jaspal Singh, learned tribunal came to the conclusion that Jaspal Singh while appearing as his own witness stated that he suffered incised and crush injuries on his head and left side of his face and he was thus not able to work for 6/7 months on account of these injuries and that he used to earn a sum of Rs. 60/- per day by way of daily wages and he also spent a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on his medicines and rich diet etc., but unfortunately his claim is not supported by any medical evidence. No cash memos or any documentary proof was produced in evidence to support his oral evidence. Learned Tribunal, however, having regard to facts of the case awarded an amount of Rs. 8,000/- in lump sum on all counts. On a consideration of the matter, I see no ground to interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal in awarding compensation to Jaspal Singh appellant for the injuries suffered and medical expenses incurred by him. The appeal of Jaspal Singh therefore, deserves to be dismissed.
For the reasons stated above, FAO 1410 of 1996 is disposed of accordingly. F.A.O. 1412 of 1996 is, however, dismissed. No costs.