against the aforesaid evidence, no rebuttal evidence was adduced by the respondents to prove that the deceased was not working in the jewellary shop of PW 3 and that his salary was not Rs.3,600/- per month. 13. The Tribunal below declined to accept the genuineness of Ex.A7, however, assessed the remuneration of the deceased considering that the deceased being an artisan and making gold ornaments, his monthly salary can be considered @Rs.2,000/- per month. I am of the opinion that as per the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3, the genuineness or otherwise of the Ex.A7 cannot be totally ruled out. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the deceased being a workman and admittedly he used to work in the gold shop of PW 3, it is just and proper to take into account his salary as Rs.2,700/- per month. If 1/3rd amount is deducted out of Rs.2,700/- towards contribution to the family, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.1,800/- per month, and Rs.21,600/per annum. The Court below rightly applied multiplier as 17.08 considering the age of the deceased as 28 years. When the annual income of the deceased is taken into account as Rs.21,600/- the total compensation would come to Rs.3,68,928/- (Rs.21,600/- x 17.08). The Tribunal below also granted compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the wife towards consortium, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,000/- for transportation and other expenses. I am of the opinion that the claimants are also entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/towards loss of estate. Thus, the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.4,02,928/-. But as the claimants have claimed compensation of Rs.4 lakhs only, they are entitled to compensation of Rs.4 lakh along with interest at 8% p.a. only from the date of petition till realization. Out of the said total compensation, petitioners Nos.2 and 3 are entitled to Rs.65,000/- each, petitioners Nos.4 and 5 are entitled to
