The court's decision emphasized the importance of accurately determining the age of the deceased for compensation calculation, and the appropriate assessment of income and special damages for loss of love and affection in motor vehicle accident cases.

Heard Mr. P.S. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited which contracted the indemnity by the insurance policy of the offending vehicle bearing No. TR-01-2605, commander jeep and the said insurance coverage was valid on the date of accident.

2. By means of this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, the appellants have called the judgment and award dated 15.11.2014 delivered in Title Suit (MAC) 363 of 2013 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala in question. As the appellants were not satisfied with the award, they have filed this appeal for enhancement to make the award just in terms of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act.

3. The grounds urged in this appeal are: (i) the use of multiplier ‘16’ is entirely in defiance of multiplier suggested by Sarala Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 ACJ 1298.

4. According to Mr. Roy, learned counsel, the appellants have clearly established in the tribunal that at the time of accident the deceased was ‘30’ years of age and as such appropriate multiplier would be ‘17’ in terms of Sarala Verma (supra). Mr. Roy, learned counsel has further submitted that the deceased was a dry fish seller in the Mandai market but the tribunal on consideration of the wage of a skilled labour has assessed his income at Rs.5,000/- per month but the claim of the appellants was Rs.9,000/- per month. He has therefore emphatically submitted that Rs.9,000/- per month be taken as the basis. Mr. Roy, learned counsel has further submitted that the loss of estate has been given at Rs.50,000/-. It should have been much more. That, apart no special damages on love and affection have been given to the children and the mother by the tribunal. They are also entitled to compensation for the special damages at Rs.1,00,000/- each. He has also expressed the grievance for determination of the funeral expenses at Rs.5,000/-.

5. Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 has vehemently opposed the submission of Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the appellants contending that the tribunal has exercised its judicious mind while returning the finding on the age. The tribunal has assessed the final police report where the age of the victim has been shown as ‘32’ years. As such, the multiplier has been appropriately applied. There is no requirement of altering the multiplier. That apart, Mr. Gautam has also submitted that the Tribunal has liberally assessed the income. Usually a dry fish seller hardly can earn Rs.5,000/- per month. Such category of businessman earns much less than what has been assessed by the tribunal. However, on the aspect of loss of estate, loss of love and affection and for the funeral expenses, Mr. Gautam has submitted that the Court has given the reasonable amount. Hence, he has urged this Court may not interfere with the determination.

6. In reply, Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Neeta and others vs. Divisional Manager, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation reported in 2015 ACJ 598. It has been held by the apex court that when there is no documentary evidence relating to the income of a person who used to carry on the business, there the assessment should be either on the basis of the Minimum Wages Act or any other factors which are discernable in the circumstances. That apart, Mr. Roy has pointed out that in that case, for consortium Rs. 1,00,000/- was given to the wife and Rs. 1,00,000/- each was given to the children and parents for loss of love and affection. He has further submitted that even in this case what has been given as the loss of estate is far below the expectation.

7. Having regard to the submissions made in this Court, this Court at the outset finds that there is no dispute about the acciden