1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties.

2. This appeal is filed on behalf of the claimants challenging the judgment and order dated 05th July, 2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gondia in Claim Petition No. 87 of 2015. It is the contention of the appellants/claimants that the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal was required to be enhanced in the light of the evidence on record and on the basis of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

3. The appellant No. 1 is the mother of deceased and she herself is widow, while appellant No. 2 is the minor brother of deceased. On 27.08.2015, the deceased was travelling in Bolero Mahindra Pickup vehicle along with others. He was working as a labour and while the vehicle was travelling, it turned turtle due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 3. An FIR was registered in respect of the said accident.

4. The appellants/claimants filed the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal claiming that the deceased was working as a labour with sub contractor and he was earning Rs. 350/- per day at the time of his death. On this basis, the claimants raised a claim for grant of compensation of Rs. 33,74,000/-.

5. The Tribunal recorded evidence in the matter and upon consideration of the pleadings, evidence and material on record, it held that the notional monthly income of the deceased could be taken to be Rs. 6,000/- per month and on that basis, the Tribunal arrived at the amount of compensation payable to the appellants/claimants. Accordingly, the Tribunal granted total compensation of Rs. 8,94,000/- along with interest at the rate of seven per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

6. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the appellants have filed this appeal. Shri R.M. Pande, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in arriving at the figure of notional monthly income of the deceased by taking it to be Rs. 200/- per day. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants, there was evidence on record in the form of oral evidence of the employer of the deceased and salary slip, which demonstrated that the income of the deceased was at least Rs. 300/- per day. Apart from this, it is submitted that the Tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 16 because the multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied, as the deceased was 19 years of age at the time of death. Apart from this, it is submitted that no amount has been granted towards loss of consortium and that there has been an error in granting of quantum of compensation under the heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses. Reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (reported in 2009 (6) SCC, 121) and National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others (order dated 31.10.2017 passed in SLP (C) No. 25590 of 2014) as also the judgment of this Court in the case of Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Varsha Rajendra Pache and others (reported in 2017 (6) Mh.L.J., 308).

7. On the other hand, Shri V.P. Maldhure, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 submits that the evidence of the employer i.e. sub contractor in the present case could not have been taken into consideration because he was the uncle of the deceased and further there was no documentary evidence on record to show that the income of the deceased could be held to be Rs. 300/- per day. It was submitted that the quantum of compensation ascertained by the Tribunal was correct.

8. Shri V.R. Borkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 supported the contentions raised on behalf of respondent No. 1.

9. I ha