JUDGMENT : R. Sudhakar, J. 1. This is an appeal of the year 2012. Heard learned Senior counsel appearing for the Insurance Company as also counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. In this case the deceased is 60 years old business man. He is stated to be running a wholesale utensil shop as a joint family business with his other brothers namely, Des Raj and Sham Lal. 3. The deceased left behind the widow Romesh Jain and Munish Jain who are the claimants. It is further stated that widow died during the pendency of the appeal. Therefore, Munish Jain is the sole surviving claimant. 4. Munish Jain was examined as PW-2. He spoke about his father's utensil business as a partner along with his other uncles. He stated that his father used to pay income tax but in the cross-examination he conceded that he did not produce any record to show payment of income tax by his father. Witness further stated that he will produce the same if so directed. He further states in his examination-in-chief that on the death of his father loss caused to the business is around Rs. 4000/- Rs. 5000/- per month. 5. The claimant is 28 years old young-man and has completed his Computer Education. He continues to be in business along with his uncle. That is also not in dispute. The plea that the father was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month was based on a oral statement. No record to substantiate the said plea has been produced before the Tribunal. 6. The Tribunal in this case merely on the basis of oral evidence assumed that the deceased would be earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. The Tribunal failed to taking note of the evidence of PW-2 Munish Jain-claimant in proper perspective to determine the income at Rs. 20,000/- per month. The claimant could have produced the records of the business to show that each one of the partner was drawing certain amounts towards the monthly salary. Further statement of Munish Jain-claimant is that loss in business was only to the extent of Rs. 4000/- Rs. 5000/- per month 7. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal fell into error by fixing the income of the deceased at Rs. 2000/- per month. Further statement of Munish Jain-claimant is that loss in business was only to the extent of Rs. 4000/- Rs. 5000/- per month 7. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal fell into error by fixing the income of the deceased at Rs. 2000/- per month. The further error committed by the Tribunal which is pointed out by the counsel for the appellant is that on the death of a 60 years old person, 30% future prospectus has been taken. This is contrary to the decision in case titled Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in, 2009(3) Supreme 487 . 8. In this case, in his evidence that claimant states that he was getting Rs. 15,000/- from the business after his father's death and that can be accepted for the purpose of determining the income of deceased. Of this 1/3rd should be deducted. The pecuniary loss to the claimant will be Rs. 10,000/- per mouth or Rs. 1,20,000/- per annum. In this case multiplier of 8 is applicable. The total loss of dependency is, therefore, Rs. 9,60,000/- only. The Tribunal's assessment of compensation is excessive. Accordingly, the award passed by the Tribunal is reduced as follows: S. No. Head Award of Tribunal Modified award 1. For loss of income Rs.16,64,064/- Rs.9,60,000/- 2. For funeral expenses Rs.2,000/- Rs.50,000/- 3. For loss of love and affection to the claimant on the death of his father Nil Rs.20,000/- 4. For loss of estate Rs.2,500/- Rs.2,500/- Total Rs.16,68,564 Rs.10,32,500/- (Rupees Ten Lac Thirty Two Thousand Five hundred) The interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum granted by the Tribunal is confirmed. 9. The appellant is granted six weeks' time to deposit the award amount as ordered by this Court. On deposit the claimants will be entitled to withdraw the same. The excess amount, if any, be refunded to the appellant. The appeal is allowed as above. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Romesh Jain and Ors. (09.12.2016 - JKHC)