it was pleaded by the claimants that he was earning Rs.40/- to Rs.50/- per day. Whereas when deceased was serving as a laborer on a truck of appellant No.1, the deposition of appellant No.1 – owner of the truck at exhibit 49 is on the contrary material evidence to confirm the income of the deceased. It is stated on oath by appellant No.1 being owner of the vehicle so also employer of the victim and income certificate was also produced at exhibit 53 wherein also income of the deceased was shown as Rs.20 to Rs.25 as daily wager. In absence of appropriate evidence to prove the age of the victim, the tribunal has no option but to rely upon a receipt at exhibit 31 which discloses the age of the victim as 20 years when he died. The tribunal has also considered prospective income as Rs.80/- per day and Rs.40/- was considered as average income per day. Thereby Rs.1,200/- as monthly income. Out of which Rs.400/was deducted as personal expenses and Rs.800/- was considered as loss of dependency. Thus, the tribunal has applied 18 as a suitable multiplier and considered loss dependence as Rs.1,72,800/- and adding Rs.22,000/- for loss of expectancy of life, expenses on obesequious ceremony and for consortium, awarded total Rs.1,94,800/-.
