The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of reasonable and adequate compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act for the death of an individual, considering factors such as monthly income, dependency, and the proper multiplier.

( 1 ) CLAIMANTS have come up in appeal under section 173 of Motor vehicles Act, 1988 against an award dated 5. 10. 2001, passed by learned Additional member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, barwah, District West Nimar (M. P.) in claim Case No. 58 of 2001. By impugned award, the learned Member of the Claims tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,69,000 together with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum for the death of one Kadwaji. According to the claimants (i. e. , appellants herein) who are legal representatives of the deceased Kadwaji, the compensation awarded by the Claims tribunal is on lower side and hence, need to be enhanced so as to make it reasonable, adequate, proper and in conformity with the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. It is essentially for this reason, the claimants have filed this appeal claiming enhancement. So the short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether any case for enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is made out and if so, to what extent?

( 2 ) IN view of short controversy involved in the appeal, it is really not necessary to take note of the facts in detail except those which are necessary. It is also for the reason that findings in relation to nature of accident, how it occurred, who was responsible for causing death, liability, etc. , are decided in favour of claimants by the tribunal. In the absence of any challenge to these findings by the respondents, by not filing any cross-appeal or cross-objection, these findings have become final.

( 3 ) THE deceased Kadwaji who died in motor accident was aged 30 years on the date of accident. He was a labourer. The claims Tribunal while determining the compensation took Rs. 1,500 to be the monthly income of the deceased. After deducting 1/3rd, i. e. , Rs. 500 towards his personal expenses, a sum of Rs. 1,000 was taken as dependency, i. e. , Rs. 12,000 per annum. Applying the multiplier of 12, the tribunal worked out a compensation of rs. 1,44,000. Adding a sum of Rs. 25,000 towards conventional heads, a total sum of rs. 1,69,000 was awarded, giving rise to challenge in this appeal.

( 4 ) HEARD Mr. Sanjay Patwa, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. S. H. Karanjwala, learned counsel for the respondents.

( 5 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused record of the case, we are of the opinion that appeal deserves to be allowed in part resulting in enhancing the compensation to the extent indicated infra.

( 6 ) WE have on our part gone through the evidence led by claimants. In our opinion, the monthly income of the deceased should have been assessed at Rs. 2,000 in place of Rs. 1,500. In present day scenario, a sum of Rs. 2,000 is the most reasonable earning of any labourer. In this way, the total yearly income of the deceased works out to Rs. 2,000 x 12 = Rs. 24,000. After deducting 1/4th in the facts of this case (in view of the large family) we get a figure of rs. 18,000. Looking to the age of the deceased, the proper multiplier should be 17. Thus, claimants are entitled to claim a total sum of Rs. 18,000 x 17 = Rs. 3,06,000, adding a total sum of Rs. 14,000 under conventional heads, the claimants are entitled to claim Rs. 3,20,000. The enhanced amount to carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till realisation. This in our opinion is the reasonable and adequate compensation payable to claimants for the death of Kadwaji.

( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY and in view of aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by the claimants is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent indicated infra. The claimants are held entitled to claim a total sum of Rs. 3,20,000 from all the respondents jointly and severally together with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum only on enhanced sum from the date of enhanced amount till realisation. All other findings and directions contained in the impugned award are upheld an