( 1 ) THE dependents of the deceased not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, belgaum vide its award dated 29-1-2005 in MVC No. 1853 of 1999 have preferred this appeal under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act' ). The deceased Bhupal Janawade, by name, died in an accident occurred on 26-6-1999 due to rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicle involved in the accident insured by the second respondent- Insurance Company. The Motor Accidents Claims tribunal on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has recorded a finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident insured by the second respondent, and that finding is not assailed before us by the insurance Company or the owner of the vehicle in any independent appeal. Therefore, there is no necessity for us to review that finding.

( 2 ) IN this appeal, learned Counsel for the claimants would contend that the deceased was an agriculturist owning four acres of land in benadi Village of Chikkodi Taluk, Belgaum District and according to the claimants he was earning monthly income of Rs. 1,00,000/ -. The learned counsel for the claimants would contend that though it cannot be said that the claimants have laid before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal acceptable legal evidence to sustain that claim, the Motor Accident claims Tribunal has seriously erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased only at Rs. 2,400/- and according to the learned Counsel, the motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at least ought to have taken the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month. The learned Counsel would also contend that the compensation awarded under the heads of 'loss of consortium and loss of love and affection to the widow and children of the deceased' and 'loss of estate' and 'funeral expenses' are on lower side. It was also contended by the learned Counsel that even the rate of interest awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is on a lower side. Learned Counsel for the claimants would also contend that since the claim application was filed under Section 163-A of the Act, the motor Accidents Claims Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier 13' instead of multiplier 12'.

( 3 ) SRI M. Arun Ponnappa, learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance company, per contra, would support the impugned award and contend that no case is made out for enhancement of the compensation under any head. He, on the other hand, would contend that the application filed by the claimants under Section 163-A of the Act is not maintainable, because, in the application it was claimed that the deceased was earning yearly income of Rs. 1,00,000/ -. According to the learned Counsel, if a claimant files an application under Section 163-A of the Act claiming that his or the deceased's annual income is more than Rs. 40,000/-, such application, ex facie, is not maintainable and such application should be treated as the one filed under Section 166 of the Act.

( 4 ) HAVING heard the learned Counsels for the parties, the following two questions arise for our consideration and decision-making: (1) Whether the claim filed by the claimants-appellants under section 163-A of the Act is maintainable? (2) Whether total compensation of Rs. 2,39,000/- awarded by the motor Accidents Claims Tribunal with 6% interest in the facts and circumstances of the case can be regarded as a just and reasonable compensation and if not, what can be a just and reasonable compensation?

( 5 ) THE learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance company in support of his contention noticed supra would place reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Deepal Girish bhai Soui and Others v United Insurance Company Limited, Baroda. We have read the above judgment of the Apex Court and that judgment would not support the sweeping hypothesis put forth by the lea