JUDGMENT Mr. M. Jeyapaul, J.(Oral) - The widow and two minor children of deceased Jai Bhagwan who was 35 years old at the time of accident have preferred the present appeal. It is the case of the claimants that on 28.5.2008, at about 8.30/9.00 p.m. Jai Bhagwan who was going to his village on Hero Honda vehicle, a Dumper bearing registration No.HR19E-0780 came from the village Imlota side driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed dashed against the motorcycle and as a result of which Jai Bhagwan sustained multiple grievous injuries and died in the PGIMS, Rohtak on 15.7.2008. 2. The medico-legal report Ex.P2 would go to show that injured Jai Bhagwan who was brought unconscious to Civil Hospital, Charkhi Dadri was referred to PGIMS, Rohtak. The post mortem report Ex.P3 would go to establish that he died due to cerebral injury he sustained in the accident. Infact, a blood clot in the mid cerebral region was noted down by the Doctor who conducted autopsy on 16.7.2008. PGIMS, Rohtak had issued Ex.P9 Death Certificate to the effect that injured Jai Bhagwan died in the hospital when he was under treatment. 3. The Tribunal fixed the income of deceased Jag Bhagwan at Rs.3600/- per month. No amount was awarded towards future prospects of the deceased. Though he was taking treatment for 47 days in PGIMS, Rohtak, the Tribunal having found that no prescriptions were produced, rejected the documents marked as A1 to A30. The Tribunal also made an observation that those documents were not exhibited through the authors concerned. The Tribunal has only awarded a sum of Rs.11,000/- towards funeral expenses and transportation. Nothing was awarded towards attendant charges, loss of estate and loss of consortium. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the Tribunal should have relied upon the documents marked as A1 to A30 as those documents had been marked through PW1 who is the widow of the deceased. Just because the claimants had not produced the discharge summary, the claimants’ version that injured Jai Bhagwan took treatment for 47 days and the claimants incurred a sum of Rs.2,79,059/- cannot be rejected. He would also submit that the claimants are entitled to make a claim towards loss of estate and loss of consortium also. 5. Just because the claimants had not produced the discharge summary, the claimants’ version that injured Jai Bhagwan took treatment for 47 days and the claimants incurred a sum of Rs.2,79,059/- cannot be rejected. He would also submit that the claimants are entitled to make a claim towards loss of estate and loss of consortium also. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company would submit that the Tribunal has rightly rejected as A1 to A30 as no prescriptions were produced. Nor was any chemist examined to prove those documents. It is her further submission that the discharge summary was not produced to establish that the injured was in Coma for 47 long days in the hospital. She would also submit that the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.11,000/- towards funeral expenses and transportation expenses. Lastly, it is submitted that the Tribunal has awarded just compensation in this case. 6. The fact remains that deceased Jag Bhagwan who was admitted to PGIMS, Rohtak on reference for 47 long days died on 15.7.2008 in the hospital itself. When the patient had died in the hospital itself, the hospital would not have thought of issuing any discharge summary. Of course, the records maintained by the PGIMS, Rohtak should have been summoned by the claimants. But, just because they had not summoned the hospital records, we cannot reject the case of the claimants as Ex.P2, P3 and P9 would go to show that the injured was admitted to hospital for treatment in an unconscious state for the blood clot in the mid cerebral region and died in the hospital during the course of treatment. 7. It is not a common practice for such hospitals to issue prescriptions for purchasing medicines. Some slips are issued to the caretaker of the patient for the purpose of procuring the medicine from outside. The hospital authorities simply maintain medical records showing the prescriptions. 8. The injured had taken treatment for 47 long days, that too, in an unconscious state. At least, one or two attendants would have definitely attended him during the course of treatment. The claimants would have spent at least a sum Rs.200/- per day towards attendant charges. 9. The hospital authorities simply maintain medical records showing the prescriptions. 8. The injured had taken treatment for 47 long days, that too, in an unconscious state. At least, one or two attendants would have definitely attended him during the course of treatment. The claimants would have spent at least a sum Rs.200/- per day towards attendant charges. 9. In view of the long treatment taken by the injured in the hospital before his death, the bills marked as A1 to A30 should have been taken into consideration by the Tribunal while assessing the actual expenditure incurred by the claimants towards the treatment given to the injured. Therefore, the Court has proposed to award a sum of Rs.2,79,059/- towards medical treatment taken by the injured before his death. 10. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the Tribunal should have applied the multiplier of ‘16’ as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. DTC, [2009(3) Law Herald (SC) 2107 : 2010(1) Law Herald (Acc.) (SC) 65] : (2009) 6 SCC 121, instead of ‘15’ to arrive at the loss of dependency, in a case where the deceased died at the age of 35 years. 11. A meagre amount of Rs.11,000/- was awarded towards funeral expenses and transportation expenses. No amount was awarded towards loss of estate and loss of consortium. Some amount will have to be awarded under those heads also. 12. While assessing the loss of dependency, the Tribunal should have added 30% to the monthly income of the deceased towards future prospects as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Santosh Devi vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, [2012(3) Law Herald (SC) 2035 : 2012(3) Law Herald (P&H) (SC) 1897] : 2012(2) RCR (Civil) 882. 13. In view of the above, a sum of Rs.5,99,040/- (Rs.3600+30% thereof being Rs.1080= Rs.4680-1/3rd being Rs.1560= Rs.3120x12= Rs.37,440x16= Rs.5,99,040/-) towards loss of dependency, Rs.2,79,059/- towards medical treatment, Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges, Rs.10,000/- towards transportation expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, in aggregate a sum of Rs.9,18,099/- with 7.5% interest on the enhanced amount of compensation is awarded. The rate of interest and the mode of apportionment amongst the claimants ordered by the Tribunal is maintained. 14. With the above modification in the quantum of compensation, the appeal stands allowed in part. ---------0.B.S.0------------