The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, including the factors considered for determining the entitlement to compensation and the application of the multiplier for calculating the compensation.

( 1 ) APPELLANTS-CLAIMANTS had filed an application under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) for the award of compensation initiating the proceedings arising out of an accident involving a motor vehicle, a tanker lorry/ truck bearing its registration No. GTS 6130 wherein Manoj Kumar Jain, son of appellant Nos. 2 and 3 and husband of appellant no. 1, had met with untimely death at the age of 29 years.

( 2 ) THE Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur, on consideration of the evidence and the materials brought on record by the various parties, had determined that the present appellants, i. e. , the wife and parents of the deceased were entitled to an amount of Rs. 3,02,400 towards loss of dependency, Rs. 5,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs. 2,000 for the expenses of the last rites of the deceased, total of which comes to Rs. 3,09,400. Rounding up the figure, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 3,10,000 specifying that the driver, owner and the insurance company shall be liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally. The learned Tribunal also awarded interest on the aforesaid amount at the rate of 9 per cent per annum with an embargo that the appellants shall not be entitled to interest for a period of two years as they themselves are responsible for the delay in the disposal of the case.

( 3 ) FEELING aggrieved by the aforesaid award wife and the parents of the deceased have filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation to Rs. 3,88,800 instead of Rs. 3,02,400.

( 4 ) WE have heard Mr. V. K. Jain, learned counsel for appellants and Mr. Aaditya sanghi, learned counsel for respondents.

( 5 ) MR. Jain submitted that the age of deceased was 29 years at the time of accident and in case of death of a person of this age the multiplier used by the Tribunal ought to have been 18, but the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 14 only and thus, has not awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. He also submitted that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is very low. It ought to have been 12 per cent per annum. He further contended that the tribunal was not justified in giving a finding that the appellants shall not be entitled to interest for the period of two years as they have been negligent in proceeding with the trial of the case and they are responsible for the delay in disposal of the case.

( 6 ) PER contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, supporting the award of the Tribunal, submitted that the tribunal has awarded a just and fair compensation. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were ex pane before the Tribunal even then the appellants took a long time in getting the claim petition disposed of. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was justified in refusing interest for the period of two years.

( 7 ) WE have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. As the respondents have not filed any appeal, the finding of the Tribunal that the accident took place due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle, has become final.

( 8 ) SO far as the age of the deceased is concerned, there is ample evidence on rscord to show that the deceased was 29 years of age at the time of his death. Naval kumar Jain, AW 1, has stated that the age of the deceased was 29 years. Bhagchand, aw 2, who is the father of the deceased, has stated that the age of the deceased was 29 years at the time of his death. These statements of the witnesses were not challenged in their cross-examination. Before us also, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents did not dispute the age of the deceased, therefore, we find that the deceased was 29 years of age at the time of the accident.

( 9 ) THE finding of the Tribunal with regard to income of the deceased has also not been questioned. Naval Kumar Jain, aw 1, who is the brot