- (1.) The appeal is for enhancement of claim of compensation for death of a male aged 60 years The claimants were widow and son. He was stated to be running a tea shop and making an earning of Rs. 4000/-. The evidence placed before the Tribunal was that his son was the second claimant who was also associated with the father in the tea shop. In evidence before the Tribunal, it found that the son was running the shop and it must be merely a case of the father assisting the son in the tea shop and took the income at Rs. 1200/- and contribution to the family at Rs. 800/-.
(2.) Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant points out that the Tribunal was in error in assuming that the father was merely assisting his son. It was the other way about. I am not prepared to re-examine the issue of income when no better particulars are placed and if the Tribunal had taken the income at Rs. 1200/- the assessment being made for the year 1997, I shall see no scope for an enhancement merely because it is possible to conjecture that there could have been more income. The Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 8 and also awarded Rs. 10,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs. 10,000/- as funeral expenses. Learned Counsel states that no compensation for loss to estate had been provided. Considering the fact that funeral expenses had been awarded to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- and consortium had been again taken at Rs. 10,000/- which is more than what is provided under Schedule II, I will not make an issue of the fact that no separate provision had been made for loss to estate. What was not provided was in some way compensated by the fact that there is a reasonable assessment for the other conventional heads.
(3.) I maintain the award and dismiss the appeal.;