M.Y. Eqbal, J.

1. Since these two appeals arose out of common judgment and award, the same are being heard and disposed of by this common order.

2. M.A. No. 22 of 2004 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Latehar in M.V. Claim Case No. 01 of 2003, whereas M.A. No. 78 of 2004 has been filed by the appellant, National Insurance Company Limited challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal in the said case.

3. The fact of the case lies in a narrow compass.

4. The appellants of M.A. No. 22 of 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the claimants) filed the aforementioned claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 23,00.000/- for the death of Rajshri Nagesh in a motor vehicle accident. The claimants case is that on 20.9.2002 the deceased Rajshri Nagesh was going to Chandwa to offer Puja along with her husband claimant No. 1 and Bodyguard by their own vehicle bearing registration No. BR-18-9545 and when they reached near village-Jagaldaga one Tanker bearing No. JH-01C-2766 was coming from opposite direction at a high speed and dashed the car of the deceased resulting several grievous injuries to the occupants of the car. The deceased- Rajshri Nagesh was shifted to hospital and in course of treatment she died. The claimants case is that the claimant No. 1 is a Judicial Officer and his salary on 1st September, 2002 was nearly Rs. 30,000/- per month. The claimants also alleged that the deceased was looking after the cultivation work and her annual income from agriculture was approximately Rs. 1,25,000/-. The insurer of the tanker, namely, appellant-- National Insurance Company Limited contested the claim by filing written statement denying and disputing the income of the deceased and also the income of claimant No. 1.

5. The tribunal framed the following 9 issues for consideration :

"(i) Whether the claim case as framed is maintainable?

(ii) Whether the applicants have valid cause of action for the case?

(iii) Whether the accident took place on 22.9.2002 as alleged in the application for compensation?

(iv) Whether the death of Rajshree Nagesh, wife of the Applicant No. 1 was the result of aforesaid accident?

(v) Whether the vehicles involved in the aforesaid accident was insured with the O.P. Nos. 3 and 4 respectively during the period of accident as required under M.V. Act, 1988?

(vi) Whether the opposite party members are liable to pay compensation jointly or severally ? If so whether the insurance company may be made liable to pay compensation to the applicants?

(vii) Whether the amount of compensation claimed is just and proper? What should be the quantum of compensation under the circumstances of the case?

(viii) Whether the applicants are entitled to interest from the date of accident/date of filing application?

(ix) Are the applicants entitled to the reliefs as prayed for or any other relief?

6. While deciding issue Nos. 3, 4 and 5 the Tribunal held that the accident took place resulting grievous injuries to the deceased Rajshree Nagesh who died in Apollo Hospital. The tribunal also answered issue No. 1 by holding that the claim application filed by the claimants is maintainable. In answering issue Nos. 7, 8 and 9 the tribunal recorded a finding that deceased was 52 years of age and was a domestic lady who had no income prior to accident. The tribunal therefore, proceeded to decide the quantum of compensation by applying second schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act, according to which notional income for compensation to those who had no income then 1/3rd of the income of the earning surviving spouse shall be the basis for compensation. The tribunal therefore, calculated the compensation by taking 1/3rd of the monthly salary of claimant No. 1 which comes to Rs. 8700/-. Accordingly, annual income was assessed at Rs. 1,04,400/- and applying multiplier of 11 years the compensation assessed at