JUDGMENT Mr. M. Jeyapaul, J.: - The legal representatives of Mohinder Singh aggrieved by the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal have preferred FAO No. 6511 of 2011. Pinki and others filed a claim petition seeking compensation for the death of Gurmeet Singh alleging that Pinki was the widow and the deceased Gurmeet Singh left behind her and other dependents. 2. Deep Kaur separately filed a claim petition seeking compensation for the death of Gurmeet Singh alleging that she was in fact the widow of deceased Gurmeet Singh. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by Deep Kaur and the same has given rise to FAO No. 5721 of 2011. Pinki and others have filed FAO No. 6508 of 2011 claiming enhancement of compensation. 3. As these three appeals have arisen out of a common judgment, they were taken up for common disposal. FAO No. 5721 of 2011: 4. Deep Kaur has contended that she was the legally wedded first wife of Gurmeet Singh and therefore, she was entitled to compensation. Per contra, claimant Pinki has contended that she was the legally wedded second wife of Gurmeet Singh and therefore, she was entitled to claim compensation for the death of Gurmeet Singh in the motor accident. 5. I heard the submissions made on either side. 6. PW-9 Barkat Singh, father of deceased Gurmeet Singh, has categorically deposed that claimant Deep Kaur was originally married to his son Gurmeet Singh. They were blessed with two children out of their wedlock but later on as per the decision of the Panchayat dated 2.7.1991, customary divorce was granted to Gurmeet Singh. Thereafter, Gurmeet Singh got married Pinki. They were blessed with a child. Deep Kaur also married another person by name Gurmeet Singh son of Gurdit Singh, resident of Delhi. 7. PW-7 Attar Singh son of Gurdit Singh, real brother of Gurmeet Singh resident of Delhi, has deposed that in the year 2001, his brother Gurmeet Singh married Deep Kaur. She was the legally wedded wife of his brother. He had also deposed about dissolution of marriage by mutual consent in the Panchayat that was organized as per the custom of the community. 8. She was the legally wedded wife of his brother. He had also deposed about dissolution of marriage by mutual consent in the Panchayat that was organized as per the custom of the community. 8. There is no reason to reject the evidence of PW-7 and PW-9 who have categorically deposed that the first marriage of Gurmeet Singh with Deep Kaur ended in mutual divorce as per customary practice and thereafter, he got married Pinki as his second wife. Claimant Pinki has established that she was the legally wedded second wife of Gurmeet Singh after grant of customary divorce to him by the Panchayat, putting an end to his first marriage with Deep Kaur. 9. PW-5 having brought the ration-card in the name of deceased Gurmeet Singh, spoke to the fact that Pinki was shown as his wife. Their son was also shown in the ration-card. To counter-blast the above evidence, Deep Kaur produced ration-card, BPO list and voters’ list. It is found that those documents had come into existence only in 2009 after the demise of Gurmeet Singh. Therefore, those documents would have been procured for the purpose of making a claim by Deep Kaur. Much credence cannot be attached to such documents. 10. Deep Kaur had filed a maintenance application in the year 2004 as against Gurmeet Singh alleging that she was the legally wedded wife. It is to be noted that Deep Kaur had unambiguously admitted in the said petition that Gurmeet Singh had contracted second marriage with Pinki. Deceased Gurmeet Singh had contested the petition for maintenance on the ground that he had already divorced claimant Deep Kaur as per their customary law and married claimant Pinki. The Criminal Court refused to grant any interim maintenance to Deep Kaur, accepting the contention of deceased Gurmeet Singh. Gurmeet Singh had also testified before the Criminal Court in the maintenance proceedings that he had already divorced Deep Kaur and had married Pinki as his second wife. 11. Claimant Pinki has produced Exhibit P-26 the identity-card, which was issued in the year 2006 to establish that she was shown as wife of Gurmeet Singh. 12. The above evidence on record would unerringly establish that the deceased Gurmeet Singh had already divorced Deep Kaur and thereafter, married Pinki as his second wife. 11. Claimant Pinki has produced Exhibit P-26 the identity-card, which was issued in the year 2006 to establish that she was shown as wife of Gurmeet Singh. 12. The above evidence on record would unerringly establish that the deceased Gurmeet Singh had already divorced Deep Kaur and thereafter, married Pinki as his second wife. In view of the above, I find that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition filed by Deep Kaur. No interference is called for with the well-considered decision of the Tribunal. Therefore, FAO No. 5721 of 2011 stands dismissed. FAO No. 6508 of 2011: 13. Heard the submissions made on either side. 14. Deceased Gurmeet Singh had died in the motor accident leaving behind his wife Pinki, three children and his father. There are totally five dependents of the deceased Gurmeet Singh. The Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4200/- per month. As the deceased who was earning a meager sum of Rs.4200/- per month had left behind five dependents, he would not have spent more than 1/4th of his income towards his personal living expenses. 15. It is found that the Tribunal has not added 30 per cent of income towards future prospects to the monthly income of the deceased as per ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd., [2012(3) Law Herald (SC) 2035 : 2012(3) Law Herald (P&H) (SC) 1897] : 2012(2) RCR (Civil) 882. Towards loss of estate, no amount was awarded. Only a meager sum of Rs.5000/- was awarded towards loss of consortium. 16. The deceased Gurmeet Singh was 36 years of age at the time of accident but the Tribunal instead of applying multiplier of 15 as per decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, [2009(3) Law Herald (SC) 2107 : 2010(1) Law Herald (Acc.) (SC) 65] : 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77, has wrongly applied a multiplier of 14 to arrive at loss of dependency. 17. In view of the above, a sum of Rs.7,37,100/- (Rs. 4200 + 30 % thereof being Rs.1260/- = Rs. 5460/- minus 1/4th thereof being Rs. 17. In view of the above, a sum of Rs.7,37,100/- (Rs. 4200 + 30 % thereof being Rs.1260/- = Rs. 5460/- minus 1/4th thereof being Rs. 1365/- = Rs.4095/-x 12 x 15 = Rs.7,37,100/-) towards loss of dependency, Rs.5000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.9600/- towards funeral expenses and transportation charges and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, in aggregate, a sum of Rs.7,61,700/- are awarded. Thus, over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal, a sum of Rs.2,76,700/- is awarded with interest at the rate of 7½ per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. The rate of interest applied by the Tribunal on the amount awarded by it and the mode of apportionment adopted by it stand confirmed. 18. With the above modification in the quantum of compensation, this appeal is partly allowed. FAO No. 6511 of 2011: 19. Heard the submissions made on either side. 20. Deceased Mahinder Singh had left behind his widow, four children and his father. Deceased Mahinder Singh was 38 years of age at the time of accident but the Tribunal instead of applying multiplier of 15 as per decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, [2009(3) Law Herald (SC) 2107 : 2010(1) Law Herald (Acc.) (SC) 65] : 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77, has wrongly applied a multiplier of 14 to arrive at loss of dependency. 21. The Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4200/- per month. Deceased Mahinder Singh had left behind large family consisting of six dependents. He would not have spent more than 1/5th of his income towards his personal living expenses but unfortunately the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd of his income towards his personal expenses. 22. Further, the Tribunal has not added 30 per cent of income towards future prospects to the monthly income of the deceased as per ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd., [2012(3) Law Herald (SC) 2035 : 2012(3) Law Herald (P&H) (SC) 1897] : 2012(2) RCR (Civil) 882. Only a meager sum of Rs.5000/- was awarded towards loss of consortium. Considering the age of the deceased and the widow, the Court has proposed to award sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. Towards loss of estate, no amount was awarded. Only a meager sum of Rs.5000/- was awarded towards loss of consortium. Considering the age of the deceased and the widow, the Court has proposed to award sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. Towards loss of estate, no amount was awarded. Therefore, it is proposed to award Rs.5000/- under this head. 23. In view of the above, a sum of Rs.7,86,240/- (Rs.4200 + 30 % thereof being Rs.1260/- = Rs. 5460/- minus 1/5th thereof being Rs. 1092/- = Rs.4368/- x 12 x 15 = Rs.7,86,240/-) towards loss of dependency, Rs.5000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.9600/- towards funeral expenses and transportation charges and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, in aggregate, a sum of Rs.8,10,840/- are awarded. Thus, over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal, a sum of Rs.3,25,840/- is awarded with interest at the rate of 7½ per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. The rate of interest applied by the Tribunal on the amount awarded by it and the mode of apportionment adopted by it stand confirmed. 24. With the above modification in the quantum of compensation, this appeal is partly allowed. ---------0.B.S.0------------