1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. At their request and with their consent, the appeal itself is taken for final disposal.

2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant No.1 i.e. widow, the appellant No.2 minor son and appellant No.3 the mother, who are aged 29 years, 7 years and 59 years respectively claiming enhanced compensation on account of demise of Santosh the sole breadwinner, who died in a motor accident. Accordingly, record and proceedings were also called for in order to facilitate the disposal of this appeal at the stage of admission.

3. There is no dispute that Santosh Narayan Gaware died on 10.5.2012 after S.T. Bus bearing MH20/ D8967 dashed against the Motorcycle bearing No.MH-26/Q-6608, which he was riding with Kishan Kumar as pillion rider. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has determined the compensation @ Rs.5,43,000/- (inclusive of no fault liability amount). The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has also awarded the claimants interest @ 7.5% p.a. on the compensation amount from the date of the petition till realization of compensation amount.

4. Mr.M.V.Ghatge, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was not justified in treating the income of Santosh as only Rs.3,000/p. m. when there was ample evidence on record to establish that Santosh was a skilled electrician. Mr.Ghatge points out that Santosh owned agricultural land admeasuring 90 Are and therefore, some compensation was due towards supervision charges, which the claimants will be forced to bear consequent upon demise of Santosh. Mr.Ghatge points out that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in deciding the Claim Petition on behalf of claimants of pillion rider Kishan Kumar has in fact awarded supervision charges @ Rs.1,500/- p.m. Mr.Ghatge submits that there was absolutely no reason for unequal yardstick in so far as present claimants are concerned.

5. Mr.Ghatge submits that the income of Santosh was required to be taken minimum @ Rs.8,000/- p.m. taking into consideration that he was skilled as a electrician. Mr.Ghatge submits that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has failed to make any addition towards future prospects. Such failure is contrary to law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others [2017 (13) SCALE 12]. For these reasons, Mr.Ghatge submits that the compensation amount awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is required to be enhanced up to Rs.22,00,000/- or more.

6. Mr.Ghatge hands in a calculation chart, taking Santosh's income as Rs.8,000/- p. m. and supervisory charges of Rs.1,500/- p.m. Mr.Ghatge submits that it is the duty of the Tribunal to determine just compensation and therefore, just compensation can always be granted by this Court, even though the claimants in their claim petition may have claimed only Rs.8,00,000/- by way of compensation.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no evidence on record to establish that Santosh was indeed a electrician or a skilled person. He submits that no documents like some Diploma from I.T.I., salary certificate have been produced. The employer has not been examined. In such circumstances, the learned counsel submits that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was quite justified in treating the monthly income of Santosh @ Rs.3,000/- p.m.

8. Learned counsel submits that there is no proper evidence as regards the nature of land owned by Santosh and the type of agricultural activity, which was allegedly carried out therein. In the absence of any such material, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was quite right in making no award towards supervision charges.

9. Learned counsel points out that excessive compensation has been paid towards conventional heads like loss of love and affection, consortium or funeral expenses. He submits that such award is entirely unjustified considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (sup