JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal arises out of the award dated 30.03.2017 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short the “Tribunal”) Raigarh in Claim (MACT) Case No.27/2016 awarding a compensation of Rs.55,000/- in favour of the appellants/claimants for the death of Pitramti Nishad.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that on the date of incident, when the deceased was going to Domanpur on her son-in-law’s motorcycle bearing registration No.CG-11-C-3578, near Timarlaga Sarangarh-Raigarh main road, the offending vehicle bus bearing registration No.CG-13-A-3060 driven by respondent No.1/non-applicant No.1 herein, in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and hit them as a result of which deceased Pitramti Nishad died on the spot. A claim petition was filed by the appellants/claimants who happen to be the legal heirs of the deceased claiming a compensation of Rs.18,43,000/- inter alia pleading that the deceased at the relevant time was aged about 57 years, she was earning Rs.9,000/- per month by selling namkin and running hotel in weekly market.

3. Pleading of the claimants have, however, been denied by the respondent/insurance company.

4. After evaluating the evidence available on record, the Tribunal, after holding that the Claimants are not entitled to receive compensation under the head loss of dependency, has awarded compensation of Rs.55,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum in favour of the appellants/claimants. Hence this appeal for enhancement.

5. Counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the Tribunal has erred in law in not awarding adequate compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal has also not considered the loss of future prospect and loss of dependency in the present case. It has been also submitted that the amount awarded under the conventional heads is also quite inadequate and deserves to be suitably enhanced. It is next submitted that all the legal heirs of deceased have right to apply for compensation. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Birender and Others. reported in (2020) 1 ACC 130.

6. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent/insurance company supports the award impugned.

7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.

8. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza.

9. Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.55,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

10. The learned Tribunal recording the finding that appellant No.1 is married son of deceased and appellant Nos. 2 & 3 are married daughter of the deceased and thus held that they were not dependent on the deceased and awarded compensation of Rs.55,000/- in favour of the appellants.

11. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance (supra), held in para 15 and 19, which read thus :-

“15. It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Having said that, it must necessarily follow that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the concerned legal representative was fully dependant on the deceased and not to limit the claims towards conventional heads only. The evidence on record in the present case would suggest that the claimants were working as agricultural laborers on contract basis and were earning meager income between R