JUDGMENT :

Vibha Kankanwadi, J.

Present appeal has been filed by original claimants for enhancement.

2. The original claimants have filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No.368 of 2011 before Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalgaon under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989. They had come with a case that, deceased Nilesh Rameshchandra Kabra was their son who was aged 32 at the time of accident. He was unmarried. He was doing agriculture work and other businesses, such as, milk supply and was getting Rs.8000/- per month. The original claimants had contended that, deceased was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No. MH-19/X-379 on National Highway No.6, near village Warad, opposite Ramji Food Company, around 3.00 to 3.15 p.m., on 25-01- 2011. One truck bearing No. MH-18/M-3895 came in high speed from back side and gave dash to the motorcycle driven by the deceased. As a result of which, he fell down and died on the spot. It is contended that, the said accident had taken place due to the sole negligence on the part of the truck driver. The said truck was owned by original respondent No.1 and it was insured on the date of the accident with original respondent No.2. Claimants had claimed compensation of Rs.8,50,000/- together with interest @ of 24 % per annum from the respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally.

3. The petition proceeded ex-parte against respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 insurance company filed written statement and denied all the averments in the petition. Age, occupation and income of the deceased was denied specifically. It was also denied that, the said accident had taken place due to the sole negligence on the part of the tuck driver. Statutory defence to exonerate it were also taken.

4. Taking into consideration the rival contentions, issues came to be framed. Claimants have produced documentary evidence and examined claimant No.1 to support their contention. No evidence was led by the insurance company. Taking into consideration the evidence and hearing both the sides, the learned Member Motor Accident Claim Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that the said accident taken place due to the negligence on the part of the truck driver, and therefore, the claimants are entitled to get compensation from both the respondents jointly and severally. As per the calculation given in the Judgment, compensation of Rs.4,34,000/- was awarded together with interest @ 8 % per annum from the date of the petition till realization of the entire amount. This Judgment and award is challenged in this appeal on the ground of inadequacy.

5. Heard Mr. M. M. Bhokarikar, Advocate for appellants and Mr. Malte, Advocate for respondent No.2.

6. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the appellant that the learned Tribunal had not taken into consideration the set principles which have been laid down by this Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court. Though evidence was led regarding the occupation of the deceased, the Tribunal has calculated the compensation on the basis of notional income of Rs.4000/- per month. In fact on the date of the accident the notional income ought to have been considered either Rs.5000/- or Rs.6000/- per month. Further the amount towards future prospects has not been counted and included so also under non pecuniary damages, less amount is awarded. Per contra, the learned advocate representing respondent No.2 supported the calculation given by the Tribunal.

7. It is to be noted that, respondent No.2 has not filed any appeal challenging the award. Under such circumstance, when the scope of this appeal is limited to the quantum, following point arise for determination, findings and reason for the same are as follows ;

"Whether the calculation of compensation done by the learned Member Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Jalgaon is proper and legal or it requires modification ?"

It is to be noted that, though statement was made by CW-1 Premlata Rameshchandra Kabra that, her son was doing agriculture work and other bus