Judgment ( 1. ) THIS appeal has been directed against the award dated 17. 3. 2006 passed by learned First Additional motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, indore (in short the Tribunal) in Claim case No. 258 of 2003 for the enhancement of the amount passed under the impugned award. ( 2. ) IN brief the case of the appellants-claimants as borne out from the impugned award is that on 29. 8. 2002 one Dinesh Sirvi (hereinafter referred to as the deceased)was going on his Rajdoot motor cycle bearing registration No. MP 11-1160 from Bagh to Kukshi. On this motor cycle Mahesh soni and Sandeep Patidar were the pillion riders. When the motor cycle reached near kukshi river, at that juncture, one Tempo trax bearing registration No. MP 10-A 2697 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle)came from the opposite side. It is said that driver of the said offending vehicle, respondent No. 1, was driving it rashly and negligently and dashed the same to the motor cycle which was being driven by deceased. Eventually, the deceased as well as the pillion riders sustained grievous injuries. It is the further case of claimants that on account of the injuries sustained by the deceased, he could not survive and breathed his last. Claimants are the widow, minor son and daughter and father of the deceased. The deceased was, firstly, treated at Civil Hospital, Kukshi, District Dhar, however, looking to his serious condition he was transferred to Gokuldas Hospital at indore for further treatment. According to the claimants, since the date of the accident, i. e. , from 29. 8. 2002 to 20. 9. 2002 the deceased was undergoing treatment in the hospital by different doctors and a sum of rs. 2,00,000 were spent on treatment of the deceased, however, despite best medical treatment provided to the deceased, on account of severe injuries sustained by him, he could not survive and ultimately he passed away. ( 3. ) IT is the further case of claimants that at the time of accident the age of deceased was 30 years, he was a mason and was earning a sum of Rs. 4,000 per month. He was also a contractor. On the basis of these premised pleadings the claimants have filed the claim petition praying therein to award a sum of Rs. 15,00,000. ( 4. ) BEFORE the Tribunal respondent Nos. 4,000 per month. He was also a contractor. On the basis of these premised pleadings the claimants have filed the claim petition praying therein to award a sum of Rs. 15,00,000. ( 4. ) BEFORE the Tribunal respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who are the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, despite they were duly served did not appear and, therefore, no option was left to the Tribunal except to proceed ex pane against them. However, the insurance company, respondent No. 3, filed written statement and refuted the averments made in the claim petition. Inter alia, it has been pleaded by the insurance company that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid licence and as the deceased was driving motor cycle with two pillion riders, he has violated the rules enacted under the Motor Vehicles Act and, therefore, according to the insurance company the deceased was negligent and hence it has been prayed to dismiss the claim petition. ( 5. ) ON the basis of the averments made in the pleadings, learned Tribunal framed as many as five issues. The parties thereafter led their evidence. Learned Tribunal on the basis of the evidence placed on record came to hold that the driver of the offending vehicle was rash and negligent and on account of his negligence, the accident took place. The learned Tribunal after appreciating and marshalling the evidence also held that the deceased was a mason. Claims Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and passed an award to the tune of Rs. 3,75,000 and directed to disburse the amount of award in accordance to the directions given in para 39 of the award. The learned Tribunal also directed to pay interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition. The Tribunal has also arrived at a conclusion while deciding issue No. 2 that it is not proved that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective licence on the date of accident. ( 6. ) IN this manner, feeling aggrieved by the impugned award, the claimants have come up in this appeal for the enhancement of the award. ( 7. ) MR. ( 6. ) IN this manner, feeling aggrieved by the impugned award, the claimants have come up in this appeal for the enhancement of the award. ( 7. ) MR. Patwa, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has vehemently contended that the learned Tribunal despite having come to the conclusion that the deceased was a mason has incorrectly held that his income was Rs. 70 per day though there is definite evidence of the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs. 150 per day which would mean that his monthly income was Rs. 4,500 and if that would be the position, according to learned counsel, the award is on lesser side. It has also been contended by learned counsel that despite the deceased had undergone treatment for 21 days, less amount of compensation has been awarded by the learned Tribunal for special diet, conveyance of the attendant, loss to estate and loss of love and affection. On these premised arguments, it has been argued by learned counsel that the impugned award be enhanced up to the extent of Rs. 10,00,000. ( 8. ) COMBATING the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. S. V. Dandwate, learned counsel for respondent no. 3, insurance company argued in support of the impugned award and has submitted that the amount of the award is just and proper and the claimants should not be permitted to make a fortune out of misfortune. Accordingly, it has been prayed by learned counsel for the insurance company that this appeal sans substance and the same be dismissed. ( 9. ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that this appeal deserves to be allowed in part. ( 10. ) WE have gone through the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal holding that the deceased was a mason. The said finding of the learned Tribunal is based upon appreciation and marshalling of the evidence of the claimants and since there is no rebuttal evidence of the driver and the owner of the vehicle, we hereby affirm and put our stamp of approval to the finding of learned Claims Tribunal holding the deceased to be a mason. ( 11. ) THE next question would arise that what was the income of the deceased on the date of accident. ( 11. ) THE next question would arise that what was the income of the deceased on the date of accident. It is borne out from the testimony of the claimant Radhabai who is the widow of the deceased (appellant No. 1) that the deceased along with his family members was residing in Indore and was doing the work of mason in Indore city. It is also not in dispute that the impugned accident took place on 29. 8. 2002 and during those days one could realise that what would be the rate of a mason in indore city which was developing very fast. Since there is definite evidence of the claimant Radhabai as well the finding of the learned Claims Tribunal is that the deceased was a mason and if that is the position, we are of the considered view that definitely he must be earning Rs. 100 per day which would mean that he was earning a sum of Rs. 3,000 per month and we accordingly hold so. According to us, learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 70 per day. Since we have already held that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,000 per month which would mean that he was earning rs. 36,000 per annum and, therefore, the dependency would be Rs. 24,000. Since the age of the deceased was 30 years, by applying the multiplier of 17, according to us, the appellants are entitled for a sum of rs. 4,08,000 towards general damages. ( 12. ) THE Tribunal has awarded a sum of rs. 71,000 for medical expenditure which according to us has rightly been awarded looking to the medical bills submitted by the claimants. However, on going through the impugned award we find that learned tribunal assessed the conveyance charges of the attendant and the special diet provided to the deceased when he was alive and a sum of Rs. 11,400 has been directed to be paid under these heads. According to us, since firstly the deceased was treated at Kukshi and, thereafter, he was shifted to Indore in Gokuldas Hospital for further treatment, thus keeping in mind that the deceased was alive for 21 days, we are of the view that the claimants are entitled to rs. 20,000 in total towards the conveyance charges of the attendant as well as the special diet provided to the deceased. 20,000 in total towards the conveyance charges of the attendant as well as the special diet provided to the deceased. Thus, the amount of Rs. 11,400 awarded under this head is enhanced from Rs. 11,400 to rs. 20,000. The amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal under other heads is hereby affirmed. Thus, the appellants shall be entitled to Rs. 4,08,000 for general damages; Rs. 71,000 towards medical expenses; Rs. 5,000 towards consortium; rs. 2,000 towards funeral charges; rs. 20,000 towards attendant, transport, etc. and in total the appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 5,06,000. ( 13. ) FOR the reasons stated hereinabove this appeal stands allowed in part and the amount of award Rs. 3,75,000 awarded by learned Claims Tribunal is enhanced to rs. 5,06,000 along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition. The amount of enhanced award be disbursed amongst the claimants equally as directed by the learned Claims Tribunal. The appellants shall also be entitled to the costs. Counsels fee Rs. 1,000, if pre-certified. Appeal partly allowed.