DEBI PROSAD DEY,J. - (1.) Motor Accident Claim Case No. 139 of 2010, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Malda (hereafter the tribunal), arose out of an application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It was disposed of by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 5th Court, Malda by an award dated 23rd March, 2011. The claimants were awarded compensation in a sum of Rs. 94,150/- along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till date of payment thereof by the insurer. Such award is the subject-matter of this appeal at the instance of the claimants (hereafter the appellants), being the parents of the deceased victim and his unmarried sister.
(2.) The appellants are primarily aggrieved because (1) the multiplier was selected by the tribunal bearing in mind the age of the mother of the victim; (2) although the tribunal had assessed compensation in a sum of Rs. 1,34,500/-, 30% thereof was deducted on the ground that the victim was also responsible for rash and negligent driving of the motorbike, which he was riding, leading to the accident; (3) only Rs. 2000/- and Rs. 4500/- were awarded on account of funeral expenses and loss of estate, respectively; and (4) the loss of dependency was calculated treating Rs. 15,000/- as the notional income of the victim although in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2008) 12 SCC 165 [Lakshmi Devi v. Md. Tabbar] , the victim's notional income ought to have been reckoned as Rs. 36,000/- per year.
(3.) Mr. Rahaman, learned advocate representing the appellants submits that the tribunal grossly erred in awarding paltry compensation, as noted above, and that having regard to the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 [Smt. Sarla Verma and Ors v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.] and (2013) 9 SCC 54 [Rajesh and Ors. v. Rajbir Singh and Ors.] , such compensation awarded by the tribunal ought to be suitably modified.;