3. The deceased is said to have been died at the age of 50 years. Whereas, his wife /1st claimant, was aged about 48 years and their sons were aged about 32 years and 28 years, respectively. If that is taken to be correct, the deceased should have married the 1st claimant, at the age of 18 wherein, the 1st claimant, should have been 16 years of age, at the time of marriage. According to the learned counsel, marriage at such an young age is highly improbable and the tribunal has not considered this aspect at all. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance company that the age of the deceased must have been higher and the multiplier applied is without application of mind. Therefore, on consideration of this point, it is contended that the award should be set aside and the claimants have to prove the correct age, as the burden of proof lies on them. The 2 nd point was that the income was not proved by filing the acknowledgment of income tax returns filed for the year 2009-10 and 2010-11. Exs.P9 and P10 are Income tax returns for the years 2009-10 and 2010-11.
