JUDGMENT :

S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

1. The appellants/original claimants in Motor Accident Claim Petition [MACP] No.40/2014 before Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Ahmednagar [for short ‘the Tribunal’] impugns the judgment and award dated 09/01/2019 passed under Section 166, in this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for short ‘the Act’].

2. The claimants had approached the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.2,52,70,000/- from the respondents towards accidental death of Dnyandev Namdeo Gavhane [deceased] in an accident dated 15/10/2013. It is the contention of the claimants that the deceased – Dnyandev, while riding his motorcycle was dashed by a tempo registration No. MH-17-AG-4369, owned by respondent no.1 and insured with respondent no.2. According to the claimants, the tempo driver was responsible for the accident. It is further contention of the claimants that deceased – Dnyandev was aged 43 years and was earning Rs.2,00,000/- per month from agriculture and milk supply. He was also owner of a tractor and rickshaw that was adding to his income.

3. The claim petition was contested by respondent no.2 – insurer on the ground that the insured tempo has been falsely implicated and the collusive claim is presented for compensation. In the alternative pleaded that respondent no.1 [owner of vehicle] is guilty of breach of conditions of the policy. On merit, pleaded that the claim is excessive and exorbitant.

4. The Tribunal framed the issues based on the pleadings of the parties. The claimants relied upon the evidence of PW-1 - Kiran and also four other witnesses on the point of income of the deceased either from selling agricultural product or supplying milk to the dairy. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, concluded that accident occurred due to fault of tempo driver. The income of the deceased from agriculture and from use of the vehicles has been quantified to the tune of Rs.1,98,000/-p.a. Accordingly passed an award for Rs.23,80,000/- along with interest @ 8% p.a. in favour of the claimants. Pertinently, respondent no.2 – insurer accepted the award and released the compensation amount. However, claimants aggrieved by the assessment of compensation, filed this appeal seeking enhancement. Therefore, the contentious issue before this Court is restricted to quantification of just compensation.

5. We have finally heard the appeal at admission stage by consent of the parties, since the record and proceeding from the Tribunal is already received.

6. Mr. Markad, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants would submit that the Tribunal has erroneously discarded major claim for compensation. He would submit that the claimants have categorically pleaded monthly income of deceased as Rs.2,00,000/- per month from various sources like agriculture, dairy business and use of tractor and rickshaw. He would submit that there were five dependents of deceased. However, the Tribunal has accepted the dependency of claimant nos.1, 4 and 5 i.e. widow and the parents only. He would further submit that the assessment of compensation towards non-pecuniary heads is inadequate. Mr. Markad would invite attention of this Court towards copies of 7/12 extracts to demonstrate that the deceased was holding the agricultural land admeasuring 1 Hectare 48 Are in his individual name. Further, he had 1 Hectare 4 Are land jointly along with the claimants. Relying upon the oral and documentary evidence, he would submit that voluminous evidence is available on record to support the case of the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs.2,00,000/- per month. He would therefore urge to allow the entire claim for compensation as per claim petition.

7. Mr. Bodade, learned Advocate appearing for respondent no.2 vehemently opposes the contentions of the appellants. He took us through oral and documentary evidence on record and submits that dece