Judgment Heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. Aggrieved by the direction to pay higher compensation in Motor Accident Claims Petitions, the present Appeals are preferred by the insurer i.e. original respondent no.2 in both the Appeals. 3. The Petitions were filed by the legal representatives as well as dependants of two deceased, who were the real brothers. 4. The appellant challenges the finding of the Tribunal that the driver of the insured was negligent in driving the insured truck and in the alternative claims that the learned trial Court has granted excessive compensation, principally on the head of the compensation towards the non-conventional heads, as the learned Tribunal has arrived at a notional income of the deceased (though not expressly worded) at the rate of Rs. 3000/-per month. 5. Mr. Upadhye, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,43,000/-towards the loss under other conventional head (i.e. non-pecuniary) in M.A.C.P. No.369 of 2008 while in M.A.C.P. 368 of 2008 on the similar head, an amount of Rs.1,10,000/-was awarded. He submits that the compensation on these heads in each of the cases, could not have been beyond Rs. 20,000/-, as has been held in catena of cases by the Supreme Court. 6. On the other hand, Mr. S. S. Patil, learned counsel for the respondents submits that though it may appear at the first blush that the learned Tribunal has granted higher compensation, on non-conventional head, it is clear from the documents on record that the learned Tribunal has arrived at wrong conclusion while assessing the income of each of the deceased at Rs. 100/-per day i.e. Rs. 3,000/-per month only. He submits that when there is no income of the deceased, then only the notional income of Rs. 3000/-per month is to be assumed. According to him, in the present case, there was definite evidence to show that the deceased, who were the real brothers, were cultivating their 1H and 23R of land, which was under wet cultivation and at the time of the accident, the deceased were taking their vegetables to the market, as is evidenced by the panchanama of spot of occurrence. 7. In that view of the matter, relying on the ratio of Ranjana Prakash and ors. v. Divisional Manager and anr. 7. In that view of the matter, relying on the ratio of Ranjana Prakash and ors. v. Divisional Manager and anr. 2012 AIR SCW 848, he submits that the claimants can certainly assail the findings on the quantum of compensation on pecuniary head awarded by the Tribunal, though no Appeal is preferred. 8. On the basis of this material, following points arise for my determination:- I) Whether the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicle bearing No.MP-09 KC-5070? II) Whether the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal needs any interference? My finding to the point no. I is in the affirmative, to point no. II is No. The Appeals are therefore dismissed, without any order as to costs for the reasons to follow. REASONS: 9. It is an admitted fact that in a dash between the minidoor and the truck, the accident has occurred. The truck was insured with the present appellant. The panchanama of the spot of occurrence, certified copy of which was placed on record, show that right side portion of the goods truck was compressed and the situation on the road evidenced that the truck was in a great speed. It is thus clear that the conclusion of the learned Tribunal that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck insured with the present appellant, is proper. 10. As regards the quantum of the compensation, it was vehemently submitted by Mr. Upadhye, learned counsel that the compensation awarded on non-conventional heads, as detailed supra is not at all sustainable. 11. On the other hand, Mr. S.S. Patil, learned counsel submitted that 7/12 extract filed in each of the cases clearly show that both the real brothers were cultivating 1H and 23R of land, by growing vegetable crops like brinjal etc. and the very fact that both were carrying their vegetables at the time of the accident, as is noted in the panchanama of the spot of occurrence. In the circumstances, he submits, the learned Tribunal ought not have assumed the income of the deceased at the rate of merely Rs.100/-per day. 12. The accident has occurred in the year 2008. and the very fact that both were carrying their vegetables at the time of the accident, as is noted in the panchanama of the spot of occurrence. In the circumstances, he submits, the learned Tribunal ought not have assumed the income of the deceased at the rate of merely Rs.100/-per day. 12. The accident has occurred in the year 2008. Considering the fact that 1H 23R of land was being cultivated personally by both the deceased with the irrigation facility and the vegetable crops therein were marketed by themselves, the learned Tribunal ought to have come to the conclusion that each of the deceased was atleast earning around Rs. 150/-per day. If the calculation is made on this basis, and the proper deductions as given by the learned Member towards the personal expenses in each of the cases is considered and after the application of the same multiplier applied by the Tribunal relying in Sarla Varma and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and anr. (2009 (2) T.A.C. 677 (S.C.)), the compensation on the head of pecuniary damages, would be raised and ultimately, the award of excess amount towards the non-pecuniary head, as detailed supra would be consumed. 13. In that view of the matter, nothing survives in the present First Appeals as regards the quantum of the compensation. Both the Appeals are therefore dismissed, without any order as to costs. Needless to state that the stay granted in the Civil Applications shall stand vacated and the respondents-claimants would be entitled for the withdrawal of the amount, as per the directions that has been given by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. All Civil Applications stand disposed of accordingly.