Prakash Chandra Jaiswal, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 on this Miscellaneous Appeal. No one turned up on behalf of respondent no. 1 despite service of notice.

2. This miscellaneous appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 31.08.2010 and award dated 13.09.2010 passed by learned 7th Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Muzaffarpur in Claim Case no. 05 of 2009 whereby the learned Tribunal allowing the claim petition filed by the claimants, directed the O.P. no. 2 Reliance General Insurance Company Limited to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 84,500/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim case till its realization to the claimants.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that Claim Case no. 05 of 2009 was filed by the claimants-appellants under Section 166 of the M.V. Act for awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,79,500/- on account of death of their father, namely, Ganga Sah in motor vehicle accident with the case in succinct that on 07.10.2008 claimant Pramod Kumar Sah and deceased Ganga Sah were proceeding to their house through Dumra Kachahari road and as soon as the deceased arrived near Bishwanathpur chowk, a truck bearing registration no. B.R.-06G/2963 being driven rashly and negligently by its driver coming from Muzaffarpur side dashed Ganga Sah on the kachchi flank of the road resulting into his death instantly. Regarding the aforesaid accident, Dumara P.S. Case no. 244 of 2008 was instituted. The aforesaid accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver at the relevant time of accident. The deceased was aged about 55 years at the time of accident and he was fruit vendor and used to vend the fruit in the premises of civil court, Sitamarhi and earn Rs. 3000/- per month from the said vocation.

4. O.P. no. 1, who happens to be owner of the offending vehicle put his appearance in the case and filed his written statement, but the O.P. nos. 2 and 3 Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. despite putting appearance in the case did not file any written statement in the case. Claimants adduced ocular as well as documentary evidence in buttress of their case.

5. After hearing the parties and perusing the record, learned Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award as detailed in the earlier paragraph.

6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and award, the claimants have preferred the present appeal.

7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the deceased was fruit vendor and used to vend the fruit in the premises of civil court, Sitamarhi and earn Rs. 3000/- per month from the said vocation. They have also adduced evidence in this regard, but learned Tribunal has wrongly ignoring the evidence of the appellants considered the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/- per annum. It is further submitted that the deceased was aged about 55 years at the time of his death which is also vindicated by the postmortem report Ext-1 filed by the appellants. Respondents did not adduce any evidence in rebuttal of the same. But learned Tribunal arbitrarily, illegally & without any basis considered the age of deceased between 55-56 years and adopted the multiplier of 8 to work out the amount of compensation instead of 11 as the deceased aged about 55 years at the same of accident. It is further submitted that the amount of compensation awarded towards the traditional heads such as loss of estate and funeral expenses by the learned Tribunal is also very paltry, it ought to have awarded Rs. 30,000/- in the said head as per decision of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., (2017) 4 PLJR 261.

Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Montford Brothers of ST. Gabriel & Anr. Vs. United India Insurance & Anr., (20