1. The appellant/original claimant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and Award in M.A.C.P. No.49 of 2003 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Wardha whereby compensation in the sum of Rs.74,500/- inclusive of no fault liability along with interest @ 7½ % p.a. from the date of petition till realisation of the amount was granted by Award dt.2.1.2006. The claimants (appellants), by this appeal, have prayed for enhancement of the compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-with interest @ 12 % p.a. from the date of accident.

2. The facts, stated briefly, are as under:

On or about 1st January, 2003, deceased Prakash Vinayakrao Lakhakwar was proceedings towards Ashoka Hotel at Jam on foot. While he was crossing the road, the offending motor vehicle Metador bearing Registration No.MH-34 M-164 came from the Jam square while it was proceeding towards the direction of Chandrapur. It dashed the deceased while it was driven in excessive speed and rashly and negligently by Rajabhau Laxmanrao Khadokar. In the result, Prakash (deceased) s/o. claimant Smt. Bebibai sustained grievous injuries in the fatal accident and died on the spot. The claimants argued that deceased Prakash was doing business of pan shop and earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month and that he was the only earning member of the family. Therefore, the claimants had demanded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation on the ground that the offending motor vehicle Metador was insured with respondent no.2/National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Rajabhau (respondent no.3) was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident, which was owned by respondent no.1 Mr.Sujit Laxmanrao Khadodkar.

3. It is not in dispute that deceased Prakash was a bachelor while claimant Smt.Bebibai is his mother and Sanjay Vinayakrao Lakhakwar is his brother. The claimants also included nephew and niece of deceased Prakash as alleged dependents on him at the time of his death. It is also contended that the claimants had high hopes from deceased Prakash, but their hopes were shattered due to his untimely death. According to the claimants, since the deceased was aged about 30 years at the time of his death and the only earning member of the family running a pan shop and earning about Rs.6,000/-p.m., the compensation granted was extremely inadequate.

4. Mr. N.R.Saboo, learned Counsel for the claimants/appellants referring to ruling in the case of P. S. Somanathan and Others .vs. District Insurance Officer and another reported in 2011(3) Mh.L.J. 735 submitted that the compensation granted in the case of death of Prakash by the impugned judgment and Award was wrong and inadequate as proper multiplier to compute the compensation was not applied by the Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that in P.S.Somanathan's case (supra), the Apex Court has considered the earlier ruling on the subject laying down principle for the purposes of assessment of amount of compensation awardable to dependents of the deceased in cases of death caused by motor vehicle accident. The Tribunal is required to consider many imponderables such as the life expectancy of the deceased and the dependents, the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remainder of his life, the amount that he would have contributed to the dependents during that period, the chances that the deceased may not have lived or the dependents may not live up to the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances that the deceased might have got better employment or income or might have lost his employment or income altogether. The manner of arriving at the damages is to ascertain the net income of the deceased available for the support of himself and his dependents, and to deduct therefrom such part of his income as the deceased was accustomed to spend upon himself, as regards both self-maintenance and pleasure, and to ascertain what part of his net income the deceased was accustome