8. The learned counsel would further contend that the
claimants/ respondents 1 to 4 have not produced any documentary
proof to substantiate the monthly income of the deceased.
However, the Tribunal, by relying on the oral evidence of P.W.1
(wife of the deceased) to the effect that her husband was
working as a Painting Contractor, fixed the monthly income of
the deceased as Rs.20,000/-. Further, the Tribunal added 10%
i.e., Rs.2,000/- to his monthly income towards future prospectus
and thus arrived at a sum of Rs.22,000/- as the actual monthly
loss of income and Rs.2,64,000/- (Rs.22,000 X 12) as annual loss
of income. Thereafter, the Tribunal deducted 1/4th i.e.,
Rs.66,000/- from his Annual Income of Rs.2,64,000/-. Finally,
it fixed the annual contribution of the deceased as
Rs.1,98,000/-. Taking note of the age of the deceased, who was
52 years old at the time of accident, the Tribunal applied
Multiplier 11 and awarded a sum of Rs.21,78,000/- towards Loss
of Income. In the absence of any proof to show the income of
the deceased, the Tribunal ought not to have awarded such a huge
amount towards Loss of Income. Therefore, the amount awarded by
the Tribunal towards Loss of Income has to be reduced by fixing
the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.16,000/-. He would
further contend that a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal towards Parental Consortium is on the higher side and
the same also needs to be reduced. It is his contention that in
a case of this nature where the deceased was admittedly taking
treatment in a Government Hospital, there is absolutely no need
to award any amount towards medical expenses. Even otherwise,
the respondents 1 to 4/ claimants have not filed any documentary
proof to show the extent of expenses incurred towards
hospitalisation or purchase of medicine. In the absence of the
above, the Tribunal is not justified in awarding Rs.50,000/-
towards medical expenses. The learned counsel for the appellant
