Judgment :- The dependents of one Raju, dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, have directed this appeal. 2. Admittedly, on 21.03.2000, Raju sustained head injury in a road accident. Subsequently, on 28.05.2000, he died. Mainly based on the non production of his treatment record, the Tribunal concluded that it is an injury case and granted them totally Rs.30,000/- and deducted Rs.25,000/-already paid to them under no fault liability. 3. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, ample evidence has been let in to show that the said Raju died due to the injuries sustained by him in the road accident. 4. However, according to the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, the treatment record has not been filed and it is not established that he died due to the injury sustained by him in the road accident. 5. I have considered the rival submissions. Perused the materials on record and the impugned judgment of the Tribunal. 6. The road accident was on 21.03.2000. Thereafter in a couple of months injured Raju passed away. His dead body was subjected to post-mortem examination. The autopsy findings are recorded in Ex.P3 Post-mortem Certificate. 7. Of course, his treatment records were not produced. But, treatment records cannot be the sole test to decide, whether ones death was due to road accident injury or due to some other reason. It must be decided based on the materials produced before the Tribunal. 8. Now in this case, in the Post-Mortem certificate it is mentioned that Raju died due to head injury. It is not in dispute that Raju sustained head injury.(also see Ex.P1 F.I.R). Further, after their investigation police filed Final Report as against the driver of the offending vehicle for an offence under Section 304-A IPC. It is because of his causing death of Raju by his rash driving. Considering these aspects, it is clear that Raju died due to the head injury sustained by him in the road accident. 9. Now, we go to the quantum aspect. In as much as the case has become a fatal accident case, the quantum of compensation assessed and awarded by the Tribunal as though it is an injury case is deleted. Now, we will assess the extent of compensation afresh. 10. At the time of accident, Raju was 47 years old. (see EX.P3 post-mortem certificate). In as much as the case has become a fatal accident case, the quantum of compensation assessed and awarded by the Tribunal as though it is an injury case is deleted. Now, we will assess the extent of compensation afresh. 10. At the time of accident, Raju was 47 years old. (see EX.P3 post-mortem certificate). It is stated that he was a Book Binder and earned Rs.4,500/-p.m. There is no evidence to show that he had earned so much. However, taking into account his age, the then prevailing circumstances and other relevant aspects, we hold that, he would have earned a minimum of Rs.3,000/-p.m. There are 3 dependents. Out of his said income, 1/3rd is to be deducted towards his pleasure and other expenses. The applicable multiplier is 13'. Now, calculating on the above lines, loss of dependancy comes to Rs.3,12,000/-(Rs.2,000/- x 12 x 13 = Rs.3,12,000/-). Towards loss of consortium, the first appellant is granted Rs.10,000/-. Towards loss of love and affection, appellants 2 and 3 are granted Rs.10,000/- each. Towards cremation expenses Rs.3,000/-is granted. 11. In the result, the appellants are awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,45,000/-with interest at 7.5% p.a from the date of filing of the claim petition till deposit. The entire amount, less amount, if any already deposited, shall be deposited in the claims Tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Amount already paid to the appellants shall be deducted. The balance amount shall be paid to the appellants. Interest for the period forgone by the claimants before the Tribunal shall be deducted from the interest portion. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.