1. By this appeal, the appellants take exception to the Judgment and Award dated 2.4.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa, Margao in Claim Petition No. 392 of 1995 by which claim petition filed by the petitioners has been partly allowed.

2. The petitioners filed Claim Petition No. 392/1995 claiming an amount of Rs.12,60,000/- from the respondents on account of death of deceased K. T. Mohamed, husband of the appellant no.1 and father of appellant nos. 2 to 9, who died in a vehicular accident which took place on 26.5.1995 at Dabholim at about 9.00p.m. The Claim Petition was contested by the respondents herein.

3. The Claims Tribunal framed following issues:-

1. Whether the claimants prove that the accident took place on account of rash or negligent driving of vehicle no. GDS-2581?

2. Whether the claimants prove that the said accident has caused the death of K. T. Mohamed?

3. Whether the claimants prove that the claimants are entitled to recover compensation of Rs.12,60,000/-?

4. What Order?

4. The claimants examined six witnesses namely Amina Kutty-CW1( appellant no.1); Anifa alias Hanifa-CW2, pillion rider; Kunjuman Nair-CW3, eye witness; Dr. Edmund Rodrigues- CW4,who had conducted post mortem on the dead body of the deceased; Babu Nazar-CW5, eye witness and Rajan Nair-CW6, Panch witness. No evidence was led on behalf of the respondents in the claim petition.

5. The Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the evidence led by the claimants held that claimants had proved that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle GDS-2581 and that death was caused on account of the accident. Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs.5,35,000/- and awarded costs of Rs.5000/-and further an amount of Rs.3000/-by way of Advocate fees. The amount paid under Section 140 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was ordered to be adjusted against the liability under the award.

6. Mr. Kakodkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that Tribunal has erred in holding that the deceased who was aged 47 years at the time of his death was earning Rs.5000/- per month. According to learned Counsel the deceased had a shop dealing with grocery items at Birla and was also having quarry at his native place in Kerala and also had a truck. According to Mr. Kakodkar, evidence on record clearly discloses that the deceased husband was enlisted as PWD contractor and was paying sales tax. The deceased was also having agricultural property and had paid income tax of Rs.1400/- for the year 1993-94 in terms of exhibit 47. According to learned counsel Tribunal ought to have assessed monthly income of the deceased at the time of his death as Rs.8500/-per month and as such compensation awarded in favour of the appellants/claimants deserves to be enhanced. Mr. Kakodkar, further submitted that Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/3rd from the income of the deceased towards personal expenses and considering that deceased had 8 children, the tribunal ought not to have deducted more than 1/5th of his total income for the purpose of assessment of the compensation. In support of this submission, Mr. Kakodkar placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr., 2009(4) ALL MR 429.

7. Per contra, Mr. Afonso, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3 submitted that assessment of the compensation done by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. He invited my attention to form no.4-A which discloses that for the year 1993-94 the deceased had paid tax of Rs.1400/- on the basis that his yearly income was Rs.37,000/- Mr. Afonso, therefore, submitted that no interference is warranted with the impugned award. Mr. Afonso, submitted that Tribunal was justified in deducting 1/3rd of the total income of the deceased in terms of the law that was prevailing and no interference is warranted with the impugned award on the basis of the judgment of the