JUDGMENT : B.J. Shethna, J. This appeal is filed by the appellants-original claimants, who are the widow and major son of the deceased, against the judgment and award dated 19.4.1979 passed by Mr. D.C. Gheowala (as he then was), learned Member of M.A.C. Tribunal, Nadiad, in M.A.C. Petition No. 384 of 1978, awarding only Rs. 1,000/- instead of Rs, 25,000/- claimed by the claimants. 2. In this appeal the claimants had claimed additional sum of Rs. 24,000/-. However, Mr. Shelat, the learned advocate appearing for the appellants, requests to reduce the claim to Rs. 20,500/- from Rs. 24,000/-. Permission is granted to reduce the claim. Accordingly the claim is reduced, to Rs. 20,500/- before effective hearing. 3. The learned Tribunal held that the claimants have come out with bogus, false and frivolous claim under professional advice of a puerile character. He further held that sympathy of the Tribunal is towards the bereaved family, but it is sought to be exploited by unscrupulous persons. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was of the view that just in order to set an example no award should be made in favour of the claimants because they have come out with a bogus claim. However, the Tribunal, out of sympathy for the widow, was of the opinion that the widow should not go without any compensation, therefore, it awarded a token amount of Rs. 1,000/- to the widow. 4. Mr. Shelat has vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding any amount for the economic loss. He strongly criticised the observation made by the learned Tribunal that "on the contrary, at that age (80 years) he was not at all expected to earn anything and it appears that he might have been a liability to the family" and also the observation that, "It appears that the old man lived with one foot in the grave and even without the accident he could not have lived for a long time." He also submitted that the learned Tribunal has not only used intemperate language but its approach is also totally inhumane towards the claimants. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has almost dismissed the claim of the claimants only because of certain incorrect or wrong statement made by Savabhai, son of the deceased, in his evidence, which annoyed the learned Tribunal much, therefore, the learned Tribunal has come down so heavily upon the claimants. 5. It is true that Savabhai, son of the deceased and claimant No. 2, has stated in his evidence and in the claim petition that his age to be 20 years and the age of his deceased father to be 45 years. The learned Tribunal had an opportunity of seeing the witness before it and, according to it, the age of the claimant No. 2 would not be a day less than 35 years and, therefore, age of his father would not be 45 years. It is true that his evidence may not be relied upon while considering the age of the deceased. However, because of that only his remaining evidence could not be discarded, if it is otherwise reliable. 6. It appears that the learned Tribunal has placed much reliance upon the certificate, Exh. 36, issued by the Sarpanch for coming to the conclusion that the deceased was aged 80 years. However, said certificate issued by the Sarpanch is without any basis or material before him. Such certificate has no evidentiary value in eye of law. Such certificate can be obtained very easily by any person and, therefore, the evidence in form of Exh. 36, the certificate of the Sarpanch, produced by the insurance company, cannot be relied upon. The learned Tribunal has also taken into consideration the post-mortem notes, according to which the age of the deceased was 70 years. Now, in absence of any other oral or documentary reliable evidence, the learned Tribunal ought to have relied upon the post-mortem notes and the learned Tribunal should have come to the conclusion that the age of the deceased would be 70 years when he met with an accident. Unfortunately, the learned Tribunal was of the opinion that at such age, the deceased was not at all expected to earn anything and he might have been a liability to the family and being an old man he lived with one foot in the grave and even without the accident he could not have lived for a long time. Unfortunately, the learned Tribunal was of the opinion that at such age, the deceased was not at all expected to earn anything and he might have been a liability to the family and being an old man he lived with one foot in the grave and even without the accident he could not have lived for a long time. Such findings and observations made by the learned Tribunal are not only unjust, uncalled for, but also not befitting a Judge. Even strongest words would not be sufficient for condemning the same. I wish that the learned Claims Tribunal would have restrained itself from making such observations. I hope and trust that in future the courts would be more particular and careful before passing such remarks. Husband or a father could never be a liability to a widow or son or to his family. Indian culture is different where wife worships her husband as a God and son respects his beloved father at any age. To be a Judge is a great fortune for a person in his life. Everyone does not get an opportunity to become a Judge and to do the most divine and sacred work of doing justice to the poor and illiterate persons like the claimants, who are victims of the circumstances. Judge should not feel annoyed or offended only because some incorrect or wrong statement has been made before him by a rustic, illiterate, village person like the claimant No. 2. Judge should not lose his magnanimity and should not use such intemperate language in his judgment. 7. There is evidence of Savabhai, claimant No. 2, on the record regarding the income of the deceased. He has stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 250/- per month out of grazing and breeding cattle. That evidence is not at all challenged. Therefore, the same has to be accepted. There is also evidence to the effect that the deceased was even at the age of 70 hale and hearty and that fact is proved by the very fact that when the deceased met with an accident, in fact he was going for grazing his cattle on the highway. Thus, the deceased was hale and hearty and he could have at least lived 10 years more. Thus, the deceased was hale and hearty and he could have at least lived 10 years more. The learned Tribunal has wrongly observed that, "the old man lived with one foot in the grave and even without the accident he could not have lived for a long time", without any evidence on record to support its finding. This approach of the learned Tribunal is totally inhumane and it is liable to be condemned in strongest words. I have stated earlier in my judgment about the approach of the learned Tribunal. Therefore, I am not repeating it here. Suffice it to say that the courts should remain away from making any such observations in the judgment. In First Appeal No. 335 of 1975; decided on 4.12.1980, by a judgment delivered by M.P. Thakkar, J. (as he then was), this High Court has awarded multiplier of 6 years to the claimants when the deceased was aged 69 years. Taking into consideration the fact that the deceased was hale and hearty when he died in the accident, it was held that he would have at least lived up to 75 years of age. Therefore, in my view in this case multiplier of 5 years can be safely applied. Evidence regarding monthly income of the deceased that he was earning Rs. 250/- has remained unchallenged. Therefore, it is to be accepted that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 250/-. Out of that Rs. 75/- can be deducted for his personal use and remaining amount of Rs. 175/- per month can be awarded to his widow. Thus Rs. 175/- has to be multiplied by 12, which will come to Rs. 2.100/- and applying multiplier of 5 it would come to Rs. 10,500/- which can be awarded to the claimant No. 1, widow of the deceased, for loss of dependency benefit. In view of the fact that the claimant No. 2 is a major son of the deceased, I award Rs. 10.500/- to the claimant No. 1, widow of the deceased, for loss of dependency benefit. 8. Mr. Shelat submitted that the learned Tribunal has also committed an error in not awarding any amount for the loss of expectation of life to the claimants. 10.500/- to the claimant No. 1, widow of the deceased, for loss of dependency benefit. 8. Mr. Shelat submitted that the learned Tribunal has also committed an error in not awarding any amount for the loss of expectation of life to the claimants. The learned Claims Tribunal has held that, "the customary figure which is usually awarded for the loss of expectation of life, therefore, would not be applicable in this case." In my view, the learned Tribunal has committed a grave error in not awarding any amount for loss of expectation of life to the claimants. On the death of the deceased customary figure for the loss of expectation of life has to be awarded irrespective of the age of the deceased, and now this court in series of decisions has awarded Rs. 10,000/- instead of Rs. 5,000/-, which was awarded earlier in the past for loss of expectation of life. Accordingly, Rs. 10,000/- is awarded to the claimant No. 1 for the loss of expectation of life. 9. Thus, the claimant No. 1 is entitled to Rs. 20,500/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,000/-. Therefore, the claimant No. 1 is entitled to recover Rs. 19,500/- in this appeal from the respondents. 10. The learned Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation. However, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hardeo Kaur v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, 1992 ACJ 300 (SC), claimant No. 1 is entitled for the interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. 11. In view of the above discussion, I allow this appeal. Appellant No. 1, Rabari Bai Jubaben, the widow of Chhababhai Godhabhai, shall recover additional sum of Rs. 19,500/- with running interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application till the date of realisation from all the respondents, who shall be jointly and severally responsible for the said amount. The respondents shall also pay difference in the rate of interest from 7 per cent per annum to 12 .per cent per annum on Rs. 1,000/-, which is awarded by the Tribunal to the appellant No. 1, from the date of application till the date of payment. The respondents shall pay the costs of the appellant No. 1 and bear their own. 1,000/-, which is awarded by the Tribunal to the appellant No. 1, from the date of application till the date of payment. The respondents shall pay the costs of the appellant No. 1 and bear their own. The respondents shall pay to the appellant No. 1 the aforesaid additional sum together with interest within twelve weeks from today. Appeal of the appellant No. 2 is hereby rejected with no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.