Heard both sides. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. Admit.

3. The present appeal challenges the extent of the compensation granted to the appellants/original claimants in a petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

4. Since there is no cross-objection or counter-appeal from the side of the respondents, there is no need to go into the details of the actual occurrence of the accident. The record. however, would show that while the driver of respondent No. 1 - Piresingh Bhimsing Padavi was driving tractor bearing registration no. MH-36/D-9213 on the date of the accident, due to his rash and negligent driving, the tractor entered a pendal wherein the marriage was to be solemnized. Deceased Dharasing Chamarya alis Samarya Vasave, the son of the present appellants was sleeping in the pendal alongwith other members of the musical band party. Due to entry of the tractor in the pendal, the deceased was injured and met with accidental death.

5. As regards the compensation, the following relevant facts are required to be noted.

That, the deceased was 14 years old. According to the appellants, he was working as one of the members in the band party and during off season, was working as agricultural labour. According to them, his income was Rs. 4500/- per month and both the appellants i.e. his father and mother were the dependents. They further submitted that they had expended an amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards funeral expenses. Further, by adding towards the loss of estate and other non-pecuniary damages, a total compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- was claimed.

6. The present respondent No. 2 i.e. the Insurance Company contested the claim petition. Besides the oral evidence, there was no other evidence regarding the income of the deceased. The age of the deceased was estimated as 14 years on the basis of the postmortem note. In absence of any documentary evidence regarding the income of the deceased, the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (M.A.C.T.) assumed Rs. 15,000/- per annum, as the income of the deceased. From the said income, 1/3rd amount was deducted towards the personal expenses. In the circumstances, the income of Rs. 10,000/- per annum was held to be the loss of dependency. Considering the age of both the appellants, being 35 years and 33 years respectively, at the time of occurrence, the multiplier of 15 was applied and towards the compensation, an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- was granted. Towards the funeral expenses, an amount of Rs. 2000/-, towards loss of consortium, an amount of Rs. 5000/- and towards loss of estate, an amount of Rs.2500/ - were granted. Ultimately, the compensation came to Rs. 1,59,500/-. The interest at the rate of 8% per annum as was prevailing at the time of passing of the award was also awarded.

7. Mr. Shrikant S. Patil, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there was oral evidence before the learned Tribunal to show that the deceased was earning Rs. 4500/- per month. Besides this, the occurrence itself would show that while the deceased was sleeping in the marriage pendal alongwith the musical instruments, he died due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor. From this fact, it would be clear that the deceased was member of the musical band party. It was further submitted that the appellants, in fact, expended an amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards the funeral expenses. However, a meager amount is awarded by the learned Member of M.A.C.T. on that count. As regards the figure arrived at by the learned Member towards the other non-pecuniary damages, similar challenge is made.

8. Mr. A.B. Gatne, learned counsel for respondent No.2 - Insurance Company opposed these submissions. It was submitted that except the interested oral testimony of the appellants, there was nothing on record to show about income of the deceased. He further submitted that towards the funeral expenses as well as towards non-pecuniary dama