The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to enhance compensation based on the assessment of the deceased's income and the circumstances of the accident.

N.K. Mody, J.

This is an appeal filed by the claimants u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 23.3.2009, passed by M.A.C.T., Shajapur, in Claim Case No. 65 of 2008. By impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,87,000 with interest to the claimants for the death of one Kamalsingh, who had died in a motor accident. According to the claimants, the compensation awarded is on lower side and hence needs to be enhanced. It is for the enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the claimant has filed this appeal. So the question that arises for consideration is whether any case for enhancement in compensation awarded by the Tribunal on facts/evidence adduced is made out in the compensation awarded and if so, to what extent? It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail, such as how the accident occurred, who was negligent in driving the offending vehicle, who is liable for paying compensation, etc. It is for the reason that firstly all these findings are recorded in favour of claimants by the Tribunal. Secondly, none of these findings though recorded in claimants' favour are under challenge at the instance of any of the respondents such as owner/driver or insurance company either by way of cross-appeal or cross-objection. In this view of the matter, there is no justification to burden the judgment by detailing facts on all these issues.

2. As observed supra, it is a death case. On 1.1.2008, Kamalsingh, aged 28 years, met with a motor accident and died, giving rise to filing of claim petition by legal representatives (appellants herein) out of which this appeal arises seeking compensation for his death. The case was contested by the respondents. Parties adduced evidence. The Claims Tribunal by impugned award partly allowed the claim petition filed by claimants and as stated supra, awarded a sum of Rs. 2,87,000 break-up of which is as under :

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 2,000 per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses applied the multiplier of 17. It is submitted that the income assessed is on lower side as the deceased was the driver and the accident is of the year 2008. It is submitted that on other heads also the amount awarded is on the lower side. It is submitted that the appeal filed by the appellants be allowed and the amount of compensation be enhanced.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 supports the award and submits that no case for enhancement is made out. It is submitted that the appeal be dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 submits that learned Tribunal committed error in holding the respondent No. 4 liable for payment of compensation. It is submitted that the appeal be dismissed.

6. Keeping in view that the accident is of the year 2008, this court is of the view that income ought to have been Rs. 3,300 per month as the claim petition was filed u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. In my opinion it will be proper to enhance the compensation by Rs. 2,23,000.

7. Thus, the appellants are entitled for a total amount of Rs. 5,10,000 instead of Rs. 2,87,000. The enhanced amount of Rs. 2,23,000 shall carry interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of application. The amount awarded shall be deposited by the insurance company with the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal is directed to invest 80 per cent of the said amount on long-term fixed deposit in the name of appellant No. 1 in the nearest nationalised bank in the area where the appellant No. 1 is residing, with the condition that the bank will not permit any loan or advance. Interest on the said amount shall be credited on monthly basis in S.B. account of appellant No. 1, which shall be opened by the appellant No. 1 from where appellant No. 1 can withdraw the amount as per her needs. However, on an application by the appellant No. 1 this condition co