The court clarified appropriate compensation calculations for accident victims, emphasizing required adjustments in income, multipliers, and deductions based on dependents.

1. By this instant appeal, appellants - claimants assailed the legality, validity and propriety of impugned award dated 6.9.2012 passed by learned Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhatapara, C.G. (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 27/2010, whereby learned Claims Tribunal partly allowed claim application filed by appellants - claimants and awarded total compensation of Rs. 2,35,000 in a death case.

2. Brief facts for disposal of this appeal are that on 12.12.2008 deceased Sunderlal Dhruv along with Vijay Kumar was travelling on a Hero Honda Street motor cycle bearing registration No. CG 04 - ZE 8310 (hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle'). At the time of accident, non - applicant No. 1 was driving offending vehicle and Sunderlal Dhruv was travelling as a pillion rider. Offending vehicle met with an accident by dashing a tree on roadside. In the aforementioned accident, Sunderlal Dhruv sustained grievous injuries on his head, waist and other parts of the body and succumbed to injuries on the spot.

3. On account of death of Sunderlal Dhruv, appellants - claimants filed a claim application under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'MV Act') before the competent Claims Tribunal claiming Rs. 8,00,000 as compensation on the grounds mentioned therein.

4. Non - applicant Nos. 1 and 2 submitted reply to claim application and denied all adverse pleadings made against them. Non - applicant No. 2 in his reply to claim application pleaded that on the date of accident, deceased Sunderlal Dhruv was driving the offending vehicle, therefore, he met with an accident due to his own negligence.

5. Non - applicant No. 3 also submitted reply to claim application and stated that he had sold his motor cycle to Agrawal Motors on 17.11.2006, i.e., non - applicant No. 4, i.e., Umesh Kumar Agrawal (Agrawal Motors, Balodabazar) and also signed all the relevant documents including transfer paper and it is non - applicant No. 4 who negligently did not process the papers, therefore, non - applicant No. 3 could not be held liable to pay any amount of compensation.

6. Non - applicant No. 4 pleaded in his reply that offending vehicle was received by it under exchange and sold the same to non - applicant No. 2 on 25.6.2008 and also handed over all the relevant documents to him. Non - applicant No. 2 even has given assurance that he will process the required documents of transfer of ownership with the competent authority and also executed documents by mentioning therein that from the date of purchase, all liability with respect to offending vehicle will be of his.

7. Learned Claims Tribunal while appreciating the pleadings and evidence available on record held that deceased Sunderlal Dhruv was travelling on offending vehicle as pillion rider, it is non - applicant No. 1, who was driving offending vehicle at the time of accident and accident took place due to his rash and negligent driving.

8. Learned Claims Tribunal while calculating the amount of compensation, awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,35,000 by holding the income of deceased on notional basis as Rs. 15,000 per annum and fastened the liability upon all the non - applicants to satisfy the award.

9. Non - applicants therein have not challenged the impugned award. The appeal has been preferred by claimants for enhancement of award.

10. Learned counsel appearing for appellants - claimants argued that learned Claims Tribunal committed an error in assessing the income of deceased at Rs. 15,000 per annum only, whereas on the date of accident, de