JUDGMENT
Sarojnei Saksena, J.
1. Appellant-United India Insurance Company Limited has assailed the compensation award of Rs. 1,46,000/- given in favour of respondent-claimants Raj Rani, Surjit Kumar and Jaswinder Kumar in connection with claim petition No. 85 of 1993 decided on May 24,1995.
2. A brief resume of the facts is that on June 27, 1993, Jagdish Kumar deceased was going on Scooter No. DB-42-0355 to Patiala. Bhim Sain was sitting on the pillion seat. Surjit Kumar, brother of deceased Jagdish Kumar, was follow- ing him on his own scooter No. PB-11-7742 with his father Krishan Lal as pillion rider. When they crossed Bus Stand, Denthal, Truck No. PB-ll-C-5373 driven by Sukhwinder Singh alias Sukha Singh son of Dayal Singh of Majri, Samana, came from the opposite direction. Sukhwinder Singh alias Sukha Singh rammed his truck into the scooter of deceased Jagdish Kumar. Jagdish Kumar and Bhim Sain fell on the ground. Jagdish Kumar sustained multiple injuries and became unconscious. His scooter was also damaged. Surjit Kumar and Krishan Lal took Jagdish Kumar and Bhim Sain to Rajendra Hospital, Patiala, where both of them were got ad- mitted. Surjit Kumar lodged the F.I.R. at the Police Station, Samana. On July 4 1993, as condition of Jagdish Kumar became serious, he was taken to P.G.I., Chan- digarh, where he breathed his last on the same day. Jagdish Kumar aged- 25 year, unmarried, was earning Rs. 2500/- per month by doing the business of selling foot- wears. It is alleged that claimant-respondent Raj Rani is his mother and claimant- respondents to Surjit Kumar and Jaswinder Kumar are his brothers. At the time of filing of the claim petition Jaswinder Kumar was minor. The claimants claimed Rs. 40,000/- for vehicular death of Jagdish Kumar. They also claimed Rs. 15,000/- spent on the treatment of Jagdish Kumar and Rs. 7,287/- for repairs of the scooter.
3. Sukhwinder Singh alias Sukha Singh driver denied that the said truck was involved in the accident. He further averred that his name is not Sukhwinder Singh alias Sukha Singh but his name is Sukhbir Singh. He denied all other allegations made in the petition.
4. Mohan Lai, owner of the aforesaid truck, admitted that Sukhwinder Singh alias Sukha Singh son of Dayal Singh was driver of his truck on the relevant date, but he pleaded inter alia that the driver was driving his truck at a very slow speed and this accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the scooter by the deceased.
5. Appellant-Insurance Company also denied all the material facts though admitted that this truck was insured with it. It denied its liability to pay compensation on the count that the driver was not having a valid driving licence. Specific plea was taken that the maximum liability of the Insurance Company is Rs. 6,000/- only.
6. Parties adduced evidence to prove their allegations.
7. The Learned Claims Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that Sukhwinder Singh respondent was driving the offending truck at the relevant time and this accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of the said truck by him. It also held that the Insurance Company has failed to prove that on the date of accident respondent-Sukhwindcr Singh was not having a valid driving licence, as the driver had produced his driving licence Exhibit R-l, which was not verified by the Insurance Company. The Claims Tribunal also held that the deceased was aged 25 years; he was unmarried and was earning 1500/- per month. The claimants are mother and younger brothers of the deceased, who were dependents on him. No doubt husband of claimant-Raj Rani is alive and is earning also, but the Tribunal held that the claimants are entitled to recover compensation as they were dependents of the deceased. Monthly income of the deceased was assessed at Rs. 1500/-. Deducting l/3rd for personal expenses, dependency was determined at Rs. 1000/- per month. Adopting a multiplier of 12, Rs. 1,44,000/- plus Rs. 2000/- as expenses for treatment were awarded as compensation for the death of Jagdish Kumar.
8. The appellant-Insurance Company has assailed this award on two counts. Firstly, the appellant proved by submitting the report of surveyor that the licence Mark R-l obtained by the driver-respondent was a forged and fabricated document. The driver produced duplicate licence Exhibit R-l, which was wrongly relied on by the learned Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal also erred in holding that this accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of the said truck. While determining the multiplier only age of the mother was to be taken into consideration. The deceased was an unmarried young men. After marriage the dependency of the claimants would have been considerably reduced. There was no documentary evidence with regard to the monthly income of the deceased yet the Tribunal determined the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 1500/-.
9. Appellant’s learned counsel strongly stressed that the driver procured two driving licenses Mark R-l and Exhibit R-l. According to him, the appellant proved by placing on record the surveyor’s report that driver’s licence Mark R-l was a forged and fabricated document. While obtaining driving licence Mart R-l the driver disclosed his name as Sukhwinder Singh but while obtaining licence Exhibit R-l he gave his name as Sukhbir Singh though the parentage in both the licences is the same. Exhibit R-l is a duplicate licence. It was originally issued by District Transport Officer, Patiala, and was renewed by that Office from October 6, 1993 to October 5, 1996.
10. In our considered view, the Claims Tribunal has rightly held that the Insurance Company has failed to prove that driving licence Exhibit R-l was a forged or fabricated document. It was duly issued and renewed by the District Transport Officer, Patiala, till October 5, 1996, covering the period of accident. The Insurance Company got verified licence Mark R-l through its surveyor. Hence the Tribunal rightly held that on the date of accident the driver was having a valid driving licence.
11. So far as the liabilily for this accident is concerned, relying on the statements of the eye-witnesses and finding the testimony of the driver incredible, the learned Tribunal held that this accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the said truck by driver Sukhwinder Singh/Sukhbir Singh alias Sukha Singh. So far as the identity of the driver is concerned that was also duly proved before the Claims Tribunal because the driver in his written stafement admitted that he was driving the said truck at the time of the accident. Even the owner of the truck admitted this fact. F.I.R. was lodged on the date of accident wherein the name of the driver was disclosed as Sukha. No infirmity can be found in this finding.
12. Appellant’s learned counsel strongly stressed that there was no evidence before the Claims Tribunal to hold that the deceased was earning Rs. 1500/- per month. Father of the deceased is alive and is earning. Hence it cannot be said that claimant Raj Rani, being mother of the deceased was dependent on him. Ke also submitted that multiplier of 12 has wrongly been adopted. The deceased was an unmarried man of 25 years. After marriage he would have spent much more on his wife and children. The learned Tribunal has deducted only l/3rd for his personal expenses. While adopting the multiplier the age of the deceased was not to be considered. Only the age of the mother was to be considered and thus on this basis wrong multiplier is adopted. In support of this contention, he has relied on Joginder Nath Miani v. Mahawar Khan, 1992 A.C.J. 561.
13. No doubt in Joginder Nath’s case (supra) a Single Bench of Delhi High Court has held that for fixing multiplier the age of the parents is to be considered and not the age of the deceased. That claim petition was filed by the parents of the deceased. Taking the normal life expectancy into account, the Tribunal found that the deceased would have reached the age of at least 20 years. However, considering the age of the parents at the time of the accident the multiplier of 15 was adopted. The High Court held that at the time when the petition was filed age of the father was 56 years and age of the mother was 50 years. Taking reasonable expectancy of life into consideration, it was held that multiplier of 15 was fully justified, though it was held that while fixing multiplier age of the deceased was not a valid consideration. The observation in the above judgment is made with regard to the facts of that case. It does not lay down any proposition of law. A single Bench of this Court in Mohan Singh v. Smt. Niamati Bai, (1976) 78 P.L.R. 556, has considered the facts that parents filed the claim petition. After the award mother of deceased Tulsi Ram also expired. Nota Ram father of the deceased, was 60 years of age when his statement was recorded before the Tribunal. The Single Bench observed that it was the expectancy of life of Nota Ram which should have been taken into consideration future life of Tulsi Ram alone. Thus it is obvious that while adopting a multiplier, the age of the deceased as well as the age group of the claimants is a valid consideration. The expectancy of life of deceased is to be taken into consideration to arrives at a conclusion as to for how many years he could have supported the claimants. So far as the claimants are concerned their age-group is required tq be considered to arrive at a conclusion as to for how many years they would have survived and could have enjoyed the dependency allowance of the deceased. Thus, in our considered view, the age of the deceased as well as the age group of the claimants is required to be taken into consideration while .adopting a multiplier for determining the dependency to award compensation to the claimant.
14. Even otherwise considering the facts of the case this valiant argument does not merit any consideration, as the claimants are mother and two younger brothers of the deceased; one of whom was minor at the time when the claim petition was presented. The deceased was aged 25 years only when he died. The age of the mother is not proved. Even in the grounds of appeal the age of mother claimant is not mentioned. If it is assumed that her age must be around 50/55 years even on that premises in our considered view, it cannot be held that the multiplief of 12 is on the higher side. Hence this contention being devoid of any merit is not accepted.
15. No doubt the claimants could not produce any documentary evidence to prove the monthly income of the deceased, but the witnesses examined by the claimants orally proved the monthly income of the deceased. In every claim case it is not feasible for the claimants to adduce any documentary evidence with regard to the monthly income of the deceased. The deceased was doing the business of selling footwears. If no documentary evidence is adduced with regard to his month- ly income, it cannot be said that the evidence adduced by the claimants to prove this fact was unreliable and unbelievable. Scanning the evidence on record, the claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased of Rs. 1500/-. One/third is deducted on account of personal expenses of the deceased and de- pendency of the claimants is determined at Rs. 1000/- per month. Adopting a multiplier of 12 a claim of Rs. 1,44,000/- is rightly awarded to the claimants on this count. Even this argument has little force that since the father of the deceased is alive and is earning also the claimants or specially the mother cannot be said to be a dependent of the deceased. After all the family is to be compensated for the loss of the estate. Their earning member expired in this vehicular accident. Hence in our considered view, the Claims Tribunal has rightly determined the dependency of the claimants and has rightly awarded Rs. 1,46,000/- as compensation.
16. No other point is pressed.
17. The appeal being meritless, is hereby dismissed in limine. Sd/-G.S. Singhvi, J.