JUDGMENT

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award dated 29.4.2023 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khandwa in Claim Case No.101/12 awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.10,30,000/- in favour of the appellants/claimants, this appeal under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the ‘Act, 1988’) has been filed seeking enhancement in the quantum of compensation.

2. As per facts of the case, on 25.12.2011 at about 07:00 pm when deceased along with his friend namely Nitin was going on his motorcycle then all of a sudden, the alleged offending vehicle i.e. tractor bearing registration No.MP-12-AB-6946, which was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1, dashed the motorcycle due to which the deceased sustained injuries on his head and died on spot. Thereafter, a criminal case was registered against respondent No.1. The alleged offending vehicle was registered in the name of respondent No.2 whereas it got insured with respondent No.3.

(2.1) Thereafter, a claim also was made under section 166 of the Act, 1988 mentioning therein that at the time of incident, the deceased was aged about 42 years and doing farming. In the claim, it was averred that though 10.15 acres of agricultural land was recorded in the name of deceased, 13 acres of agricultural land was recorded in the name of his wife and 19.5 acres of land was recorded in the name of his father, but all the aforementioned agricultural land was being cultivated by the deceased having all advanced equipment. It was further averred in the claim that from an agricultural year, the deceased was getting an earning of Rs.9,50,000/-. In addition, the deceased was also earning Rs.1,50,000/- towards rent from his tractor. Likewise, in the business of manufacturing bricks, the deceased was earning Rs.1,00,000/- and as such, it was claimed that since the annul income of the deceased was Rs.12 lac, therefore, an adequate amount towards compensation should be paid to the claimants.

(2.2) Denying the claim of claimants, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed their written statement saying that no such accident occurred in which respondent No.1 being a driver was driving the vehicle owned in the name of respondent No.2. According to respondent Nos.1 and 2, a false case got registered against them.

(2.3) Respondent No.3 has also filed written statement in which they have denied all the allegations raised in the claim petition.

(2.4) Thereafter, the Tribunal framing issues and recording the statement of parties has passed the award on 29.4.2013 and granted compensation to the tune of Rs.10,30,000/- in different heads in favour of the claimants imposing liabilities upon the respondents jointly and separately.

(2.5) Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, this appeal has been filed on various grounds contending therein that neither the income of deceased was properly assessed nor proper compensation was determined in different heads.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that without appreciating the facts in a proper manner, the Tribunal has awarded compensation on a lower side. He has submitted that while assessing the annual income of deceased Rs.96,000/-, the Tribunal has committed an error whereas it should have been Rs.12,00,000/- per year. He has further submitted that after deducting 1/4th, as the number of dependents were four, the annual dependency should have been calculated to be Rs.09,00,000/- per year and by applying multiplier of 14, the loss of dependency should have been Rs.01,26,00,000/- and over this amount, a sum of Rs.25,000/- should also have been added on the other customary heads and as such, the total amount of compensation should have been Rs.01,26,25,000/-. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in support of their claim, there was a specific pleading in the claim petition which was supported by appellant No.1 in her deposition, but despite that the same has not be