JUDGMENT :

Anuja Prabhudessai, J.

This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 20th July, 2001 passed by the learned Additional Member, M.A.C.T., Pune, in Claim Petition No.991 of 1995. By the impugned judgment and award the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.82,200/-with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the application till realisation of the amount.

2. The Respondent No.1 was the husband and the Respondent No.2 is the son of the deceased-Nirmala, who died on 22/2/1995 in a motor vehicular accident. The respondent nos.1 and 2 shall be hereinafter referred to as 'the claimants'.

3. It was the case of the claimants that on the relevant date the deceased was a pillion rider on a Moped bearing No.MZD 6354, which was driven by the Claimant No.1. While they were proceeding towards their residence by Soos road, a truck bearing No.MH-12-7297 (transit mixer vehicle) dashed against the moped and fled away from the scene of the accident. Said Nirmala died on the spot due to the injuries sustained in the accident. One of the persons who was present at the place of the accident had noted down the number of the offending truck as MH-12-7277 involved in the accident. Based on the information given by the said person, Claimant No.1 lodged the FIR against the driver of the truck bearing No.Mh-12-7277. In the course of the investigation, it was revealed that the truck involved in the accident was bearing No.MH-12-7297 and the same was driven by the Respondent no.3-Surendra Baban Shinde. The investigating officer therefore filed a charge sheet against the Respondent No.3 for driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and thereby causing death of Nirmala.

4. The Claimants alleged that the deceased was 57 years of age. She was doing tailoring business and conducting cooking as well as tailoring classes and earning Rs.2,000/- per month. The Claimants alleged that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.3. The said truck which was owned by the appellant - company was not insured. The claimants therefore filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- from the Appellant and the respondent no.3 being the owner and driver of the offending vehicle.

5. The Appellant disputed the involvement of the truck bearing No.Mh-12-7297 in the said accident. The Appellant claimed that the compensation claimed was excessive and exorbitant. The Tribunal upon appreciating the evidence adduced by the respective parties held that the truck bearing No.Mh-12-7297, which was driven by the Respondent No.3-driver, was involved in the accident. The Tribunal also recorded a finding that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the Respondent No.1.

6. As regards the quantum of compensation, the evidence on record indicates that the deceased was 57 years of age. The evidence of the Claimant No.1 Shripad Gore indicates that the deceased was doing tailoring work and earning Rs.700/- to Rs.800/- per month. The Tribunal has held that apart from the bare statement of the Claimant No.1, there is no other documentary evidence to prove that the deceased was competent and eligible to conduct tailoring business. The Tribunal however noted that the statement of the Claimant No.1 as regards the earning of the deceased had gone unchallenged and hence there was no difficulty in accepting the fact that she was earning Rs.700/- to Rs.800/- per month. The Tribunal further observed that the claimant was a retired JCO and was getting pension. He was not dependent on the earnings of the deceased and consequently the earning of the deceased cannot be considered as loss of dependency. The Tribunal has held that the earnings of the deceased can be considered as loss of estate and accordingly applying multiplier of 8, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.67,200/- towards loss of estate. In addition the Tribuna