The main legal point established in the judgment is the reassessment of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act based on settled principles as per relevant Supreme Court judgments, particularly focusing on the deceased's income from multiple sources, loss of future prospects, and non-pecuniary losses.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellants/original claimants in MACP No.288 of 2001, filed before the Tribunal at Parbhani, impugns the judgment and award dated 16.12.2003 in this appeal, filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act before this court.

2. The claimants had approached the Tribunal at Parbhani under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act raising claim for compensation of Rs.7.00 lakhs towards accidental death of Dashrath Santramji Varade, who died in a motor vehicular accident dated 8.5.2001. The appellants contended that deceased was returning to village Khedula after closing his shop situated at Pathri on his twowheeler bearing registration No.MH-22/B-714. Another motor cycle bearing registration no. MH-22/B-5696, came from opposite direction and gave forceful dash to the motorcycle of deceased. The deceased suffered fatal injuries in the said accident. The accident resulted owing to negligence of offending motorcycle rider. Crime No.47 of 2001 was registered against rider of the said motorcycle. It was owned by respondent no.1 and insured by respondent no.2. Hence, they are liable to pay the compensation.

3. Claimants further contend that deceased was running a Kirana Shop so also looking after the agricultural land to earn livelihood for the family. They pleaded cumulative monthly income of the deceased from all the sources @ Rs.15,000/- to Rs.16,000/-. The respondent nos.1 and 2 contested claim before the Tribunal by filing written statement at exh.12. The evidence of claimant No.1 Gangubai and C.W. 2 Pralhad Kute has been recorded. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed an award of Rs.2,65,000/- in favour of the claimants. The claimants are before court in this appeal aggrieved by the assessment of compensation made under the award.

4. Mr. Girish Rane learned advocate appearing for the appellants would submit that, the deceased had income from two sources. firstly, from his grocery shop and secondly from agriculture. The Tribunal, inadequately assessed income from grocery shop and no consideration is given to the loss of agriculture income. He invited attention of this Court to 7/12 extracts placed on record before the Tribunal to contend that huge agriculture land was owned by the family of the deceased. Even, more than 12 acres of land was standing in the name of deceased alone. He would also invite attention of this Court to various receipts regarding sale of agricultural goods. Mr. Rane, relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, Magma General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram and others reported in AIR online 2018 SC 189 would submit that reassessment of compensation is required in facts of this case in terms of settled principles of assessment of compensation as per above referred judgments of supreme court. He would submit that the Tribunal has not awarded the compensation towards future prospects. Even the assessment of compensation under non-pecuniary heads is meager.

5. Learned Advocate Mr. Totla a/w Mr. Swapnil Lohiya appearing for respondent no.2, supports the judgment passed by the Tribunal. Learned advocate would submit that no concrete material has been placed on record of the Tribunal to establish income of the deceased. The Tribunal, on guess work passed the adequate award. He would further submit that, in case of agriculture income, loss of earning cannot be considered since the land continues to be under cultivation by the family members and they generate similar income as earned during lifetime of the deceased. He would further submit that assessment of the compensation has been made considering the price index in the year 2001. Learned advocate for respondent no.2 has placed on record written notes of argument.

6. Having considered the submissions advanced and on perusal of the pleadings and the evidence on record, it can be gathered that dispute in the present appeal is restricted to a