JUDGMENT :

1. By way of present appeal the appellants - claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Tapi at Vyara in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.247 of 2012 (Old No.310 of 2005), whereby the Tribunal vide impugned judgment award dated 19.6.2013 awarded Rs.1,74,000/- at the rate of 8% interest and cost.

2. Brief facts germane for adjudication of the present appeal read thus :-

That the daughter of the appellant namely Savitaben Sakubhai Padavi (herein after referred to as deceased) on 26.1.2005 was traveling in Truck No.MH-18-M-765 with minor Ganesh along with his household goods and goods relating to the labour work. It is stated that, they reached near Sagar Stone Quory at that time the respondent No.5 came by driving Truck No.RJ-19- G-9065 in rash and negligent manner and came from the wrong side and dashed the truck wherein the appellant was traveling. It is further stated that due to the said accident deceased Savitaben sustained serious injuries which resulted into the death of Savitaben. For the said reason, the appellants herein filed claim petition to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- against the respondent. The Tribunal passed the following order : Paragraph 24 to 27 which is duly produce page 11 :-

"(24) The petitioner in the Claim No – 247/12 (301/05) states that the petitioners are the parents and lawful heirs and representatives of the deceased. The deceased was 9 years old at the time of the accident and the petitioners used to do labour work and therefore, the amount of compensation sought should be granted.

(25) The respondent submits that the deceased was unmarried and minor and she was not earning. Therefore, the amount of the compensation stated by the petitioners cannot be granted.

(26) In this case, the petitioners were the parents of the deceased. The deceased minor was 9 years old and when she is 9 years old, she cannot have any income. Further, the accident mentioned in the petition took place on 26/01/05. Considering the inflation, minimum wages of that time, the income can be considered as Rs.1800/- per month. Further, it is considered just, reasonable and appropriate to pass the order for compensation of 900 x 12 – i.e. Rs. 10,800/- for the loss of income to the petitioner after deducting 1/2 amount of her personal expense as the deceased was unmarried and Rs.1,62,000/- as a multiple of 15 considering the age of the petitioner.

(27) Further, it is considered just, reasonable and appropriate to pass the order for the total compensation of Rs. 1,74,000/- (One Lakh Seventy Four Thousand only) along with Rs.12,000/- which include Rs.10,000/- as the loss of asset due to the death of the deceased and Rs.2000/- as there are no bills of last rites."

3. Heard Mr. Hiren M. Modi, the learned advocate appearing for the appellants and Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.6 - Insurance Company.

4. Mr. Hiren M. Modi, the learned advocate appearing for the appellants at the outset placed reliance on the ratio as laid down by the Hon'be Supreme Court in the case of Meena Devi Versus Nunu Chand Mahto reported in AIR 2022 SC 5006 and submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal is not in line with the ratio as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as referred above. Mr. Hiren M. Modi, the learned advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that in the facts of the present case, the deceased was a minor aged about 9 years and applying the ratio as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the amount of compensation payable to the appellants would be Rs.5,00,000/-.

5. Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent - Insurance Company supported the order and judgment passed by the Tribunal and submitted that no interference is called for in the order/judgment passed by the tribunal and the appeal may not be entertained.

6. Having considered the averments made in the appeal, submissions made by the learned advoc