JUDGMENT :

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J.

1. This appeal has been instituted against the Award dated 03.11.2004 for enhancement of compensation awarded in MVA Case No.81 decided by the MACT, Faridabad (for short “Tribunal”) in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide which a sum of Rs.1,08,500/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimants/appellants along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization on account of death of their son namely Bir Singh @ Shamsher Singh in a motor vehicle accident.

2. The matter is being taken up in the post lunch session.

3. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by learned MACT:-

“1. Whether the accident took place at Ganda Nala Bridge, G.T. Road, Banchari, District Faridabad on 20.10.2001 at about 5.15 P.M. within the jurisdiction of Police Station Hodal due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing its registration No.HR-38F/4472 by respondent No.1, as alleged? OPP.

2. If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation, the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP.

3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR.

4. Whether the petitioners have no locus standi and cause of action to file the present petition? OPR.

5. Whether the petition is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR.

6. Whether the respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident?OPR-3.

7. Relief.

4. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case.

5. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,08,500/- as compensation to the claimants/ appellants, on account of death of Bir Singh @ Shamsher Singh along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard.

7. It is pertinent to mention that the record of the present appeal and the Tribunal has got burnt in a fire incident in the High Court Branch and the present appeal has to be decided on the basis of the facts and evidence discussed by the Tribunal in the impugned Award.

8. The only issue required to be determined in the present appeal relates to the assessment of compensation. Therefore, the entire facts regarding the manner of the accident are not required to be reproduced in detail, as the Tribunal has already held under Issue No.1 that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving the offending tractor trolley bearing No.HR-38F/4472, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3 and they have been held liable to pay compensation jointly and severally. No appeal or cross-objections have been filed by respondents, challenging the said finding and accordingly finding on issue No.1 is not required to be interfered with.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the impugned award vide which compensation of Rs.1,08,500/- has been awarded is based on conjectures and surmises and is liable to be set aside and enhanced amount of compensation should be awarded. Learned counsel contended that compensation awarded to the claimants has been assessed on lower side. Learned counsel further contended that deceased was 8/9 years of age and multiplier of 18 should have been applied. No compensation has been awarded under the conventional head of loss of consortium and the compensation awarded under other conventional heads i.e. loss of estate and funeral expenses has also been assessed on the lower side and he prayed that compensation be suitably enhanced.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 argued that the adequate compensation has been awarded by the learned Tribunal and no interference in the said award is called for and appeal in hand be dismisse