The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation in motor accident claims, considering factors such as the deceased's income, loss of dependency, and other relevant expenses.

Heard Mr. D.C. Saha, the learned Counsel for the appellants. I have also heard Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Mr. M.C. Dey, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3.

2. Dissatisfied with the award of Rs. 3,72,000/- passed by the learned, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dharmanagar in his judgment dated 07.06.2012 of T.S. (MAC) No.65 of 2011, the appellants are filing this appeal for enhancement of the compensation so awarded.

3. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 20.01.2011 at about 8 AM at Phaileng-Marpara road in between Pukzing and Phulpui village, Mamit District, the deceased namely, Jama Dhan Chakma, sustained serious injuries in a road traffic accident at about 8 a.m. allegedly due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver of the Truck bearing No.TR-02C-1604 (407). The deceased is survived by the appellant No.1, who is his wife, the appellant Nos.2 and 3, who are his son and daughter respectively. The appellant No.2 and the appellant No.3 are 16 years old and 15 years old respectively at the time of the death of the deceased and, were, therefore, minors. The three appellants filed a claim petition before the Tribunal for payment of compensation to the extent of Rs. 31,30,000/-. The Tribunal after hearing the parties determined the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- and, accordingly, awarded compensation as follows:-

(i)	Pecuniary loss	Rs. 3,60,000/-
(ii)	Funeral expenses	Rs. 2,000/-
(iii)	Loss of consortium	Rs. 10,000/-

4. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the determination of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal, on the admitted facts on record, is perverse inasmuch as the deceased was at the time of the accident running a grocery shop, selling pigs from his rearing farm and also selling fruits from his horticulture garden. He also submits that the compensation awarded under the heads of loss of consortium, loss of estate, loss of care and maintenance to the children and funeral expenses are very much on the lower side, and are contrary to the decision of the Apex Court from time to time. The learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, submits that the appellants are entitled to higher amount of compensation. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellants relies on the decision of the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 and Yerramma & Ors. v. G. Krishnamurthy & Anr., reported in AIR 2015 SC 1145.

5. Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel for the insurer, however, substantially support the impugned award and submits that there is not an iota of evidence to substantiate the claim of the appellants that the deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month at the time of his death; not even a single documentary evidence could be produced by the appellants to show that he was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. According to the learned counsel for the insurer, the Tribunal has wrongly adopted a multiplier of 15, which should have been 14 in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma & ors (supra). He, therefore, contends that the impugned judgment should be modified by adopting a multiplier of 14 instead of 15 and by re-assessing the compensation payable to the appellants in accordance therewith.

6. I have carefully perused the impugned award as well as the other materials on record and have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. In so far as the income of the deceased is concerned in the evidence of the appellant No.1, she has categorically averred that the deceased was doing business of grocery goods at their village daily market and had been selling pig from his pig farm and doing horticulture garden