The main legal point established is the relevance of the age of the claimant in determining the multiplier for compensation, and the need for just and fair compensation based on the actual income of the deceased and the circumstances of the claimants.

B.P. Katakey, J.

1. This three appeals by the insurance company are against 3(three) judgments and awards passed by the learned Motor accident claims tribunal in MACT Case No. 36, 41 & 58 of 2004 arising out of the same motor accident occurred on 25.4.2003 involving the Motor Vehicle No. MZ-01/A-5405(Truck) belonging to the opposite party No. 2 and as such are taken up together for disposal.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the aforesaid claim cases before the learned tribunals is that a motor accident was occurred on 25.4.2003 involving motor vehicle bearing Registration No. MZ-01-A/5405 (Truck) belonging to the respondent No. 2 in all the appeals. The said vehicle was driven by Mr. Lalrinzuala, who was the son of the claimant in MACT Case No. 38 of 2004 and as a result of said accident Lalrinzuala died. In the said vehicle Petea son of the claimant in MACT Case No. 41 of 2004 and Thantluanga, father of the claimant in MACT Case No. 58 of 2004 were traveling also died. The dependents of the deceased filed the aforesaid claim petitions before the learned tribunal for compensation for the death of Lalrinzuala, Petea and Thantluanga. The learned tribunal upon consideration of the evidences on record awards sum of Rs. 5,17,000 in MACT Case No. 36 of 2004, Rs. 5,81,000 in MACT Case No. 41 of 2004 and Rs. 5,18,000 in MACT Case No. 58 of 2004 with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition by separate-judgments and orders dated 12.7.2004, 12.7.2004 and 2.8.2004 respectively. Hence the present appeals before this Court by the insurance company.

3. I have heard Mr. M.M, AH, the learned-counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.C. Thanga, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 in all the appeals. The respondent No. 2 who is the owner of the vehicle, involved in the accident, has not appear in spite of service of notice.

4. The case of the claimant in MAC Appeal No. 24 of 2004, arising out of MACT 36 of 2004 is that Lalrinzuala who was the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident died on 25.4.2003 when the said vehicle driven by him met with an accident. The claimant respondent No. 1 being the Aunt and the legal heir of the deceased filed a claim petition claiming compensation for the death of Lalrinzuala. The learned tribunal on the basis of the evidence of the claimant and on the basis of the birth certificate and the certificate of the income of the deceased came to the finding that the deceased was 35 years of age and his monthly income was Rs. 4,000 (Rupees four thousand).

5. The claimant, who is father of Petea and was an employee of the owner of the vehicle who died in the said motor accident filed the MACT Case No. 41 of 2004 claiming compensation for the death of his son. The learned tribunal on the basis of evidence on record, both oral and documentary, came to the finding that the age of the deceased was 26 years and the monthly income was Rs. 4,000 (Rupees four thousand).

6. In MACT Case No. 58 of 2004 the claimant, who is daughter of Thantluanga, who died in the said motor accident, filed a claim petition praying for awarding compensation for the death her father. The leaned tribunal on the basis of the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, has come to the finding that the deceased was 38 years old at the time of accident and has monthly income was Rs. 4,000 (Rupees four thousand).

7. The learned tribunal also on the basis of the evidence on record has held that Lalrinzuala was the driver and Petea and Thantluanga were the employees of the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident who were traveling in the said vehicle and since there was a insurance policy issued by insurance company appellant covering the risk of the driver and also covering the risk of 2(two) employees apart from the driver and handyman by accepting extra premium, the amount of compensation awarded by it was the directed to be satisfied by the insurance company. The learned tribunal has also held th