The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation based on the deceased's monthly income, application of suitable multiplier, and assessment of loss of future prospects.

1. This appeal takes exception to Judgment and Award dated 29th February, 2008 passed by Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati in Claim Petition No.298 of 2005. By this Award, total amount of compensation granted by Tribunal was Rs.1,57,000/- inclusive the amount of Rs.50,000/- under 'No Fault Liability. Out of the said amount, 40% amount is directed to be paid to each appellant nos.1 and 2, respectively, who are parents of deceased and balance 20% of amount is directed to be paid to appellant no.3, sister of deceased.

2. Facts involved in the appeal can briefly be stated as under:

On 17th August, 2005, deceased Yogesh Tekode was proceeding on two-wheeler bearing registration No.MH27/V-2269 along with his friend Keshao Laxman Raut as pillion rider from village Surali to Warud when Hemraj Gaikwad, husband of respondent no.1, who was coming from opposite side on two wheeler bearing Registration No.MH27/W-1243 along with two pillion riders namely, Chhatrapati Gomkale and Sagar Bhujade in high speed, in rash and negligent manner, gave dash to deceased Yogesh Tekode due to which he lost control over his vehicle and in an head-on-collision sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to same. Hemraj Gaikwad also died in the same accident.

3. On the day of accident vehicle No.MH27/W-1243 involved in the present incident, driven by Hemraj Gaikwad was duly insured with respondent no.2 during the period from 26th April, 2005 to 25th April, 2006 for which valid Cover Note No.NRO/A/9691 was issued. As such, it is the case of appellant that on the day of accident which took place on 17th August, 2005 offending vehicle, owned by husband of respondent no.1, was duly insured with respondent no.2 and as such both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to satisfy the amount of compensation which came to be calculated to the extent of Rs.7,20,000/-. Appellants, for want of payment of requisite court fees stamp, had restricted their claim to the extent of Rs.4,00,000/- only, and had undertaken to pay the requisite court fees if appellants are held entitled for enhanced compensation.

4. Appellants had claimed amount of Rs.7,20,000/- as just compensation on the basis of monthly income of deceased to the extent of Rs.5000/- and by applying multiplier of 17 and in addition to it have added amount on the count of mental shock, agony, sufferings, funeral expenses, etc.

5. Petition against respondent no.1 came to be dismissed while respondent no.2 contested the same by filing written statement, Exh.17 and had denied the monthly income as well as insurance coverage for want of confirmation of policy and has come out with the case that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased Yogesh Tekode himself and therefore prayed that the petition be dismissed.

6. Learned Tribunal holding monthly income of deceased to the extent of Rs.3000/- awarded compensation of Rs.3,12,000/- and Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses and held appellants entitled for 50% of above amount with interest at the rate of 7.5% holding that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of deceased Yogesh to the extent of 50%. Accordingly, appellants are granted Rs.1,57,000/- inclusive amount of No Fault Liability as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal by appellants/original claimants for enhancement of amount of compensation.

7. Learned Counsel Shri M.A.Sable appearing for appellants has submitted that the Tribunal had not considered fact of appellants establishing monthly income of deceased to the extent of Rs.5550/- on the basis of certificate issued by his employer thereby establishing that the deceased was working as a driver and on the date of accident was earning Rs.135/- per day as his salary and in addition to that Rs.50/- as Bhatta.

Another point which is heavily canvassed is, learned Tribunal has applied multiplier of 13 considering the age of the parents of deceased and has thus contended that the view taken by the Tribunal