Judgment : Heard both sides. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. Admit. 3. The present appeal challenges the extent of the compensation granted to the appellants/original claimants in a petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 4. Since there is no cross-objection or counter-appeal from the side of the respondents, there is no need to go into the details of the actual occurrence of the accident. The record. however, would show that while the driver of respondent No. 1 - Piresingh Bhimsing Padavi was driving tractor bearing registration no. MH-36/D-9213 on the date of the accident, due to his rash and negligent driving, the tractor entered a pendal wherein the marriage was to be solemnized. Deceased Dharasing Chamarya alis Samarya Vasave, the son of the present appellants was sleeping in the pendal alongwith other members of the musical band party. Due to entry of the tractor in the pendal, the deceased was injured and met with accidental death. 5. As regards the compensation, the following relevant facts are required to be noted. That, the deceased was 14 years old. According to the appellants, he was working as one of the members in the band party and during off season, was working as agricultural labour. According to them, his income was Rs. 4500/- per month and both the appellants i.e. his father and mother were the dependents. They further submitted that they had expended an amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards funeral expenses. Further, by adding towards the loss of estate and other non-pecuniary damages, a total compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- was claimed. 6. The present respondent No. 2 i.e. the Insurance Company contested the claim petition. Besides the oral evidence, there was no other evidence regarding the income of the deceased. The age of the deceased was estimated as 14 years on the basis of the postmortem note. In absence of any documentary evidence regarding the income of the deceased, the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (M.A.C.T.) assumed Rs. 15,000/- per annum, as the income of the deceased. From the said income, 1/3rd amount was deducted towards the personal expenses. In the circumstances, the income of Rs. 10,000/- per annum was held to be the loss of dependency. 15,000/- per annum, as the income of the deceased. From the said income, 1/3rd amount was deducted towards the personal expenses. In the circumstances, the income of Rs. 10,000/- per annum was held to be the loss of dependency. Considering the age of both the appellants, being 35 years and 33 years respectively, at the time of occurrence, the multiplier of 15 was applied and towards the compensation, an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- was granted. Towards the funeral expenses, an amount of Rs. 2000/-, towards loss of consortium, an amount of Rs. 5000/- and towards loss of estate, an amount of Rs.2500/ - were granted. Ultimately, the compensation came to Rs. 1,59,500/-. The interest at the rate of 8% per annum as was prevailing at the time of passing of the award was also awarded. 7. Mr. Shrikant S. Patil, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there was oral evidence before the learned Tribunal to show that the deceased was earning Rs. 4500/- per month. Besides this, the occurrence itself would show that while the deceased was sleeping in the marriage pendal alongwith the musical instruments, he died due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor. From this fact, it would be clear that the deceased was member of the musical band party. It was further submitted that the appellants, in fact, expended an amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards the funeral expenses. However, a meager amount is awarded by the learned Member of M.A.C.T. on that count. As regards the figure arrived at by the learned Member towards the other non-pecuniary damages, similar challenge is made. 8. Mr. A.B. Gatne, learned counsel for respondent No.2 - Insurance Company opposed these submissions. It was submitted that except the interested oral testimony of the appellants, there was nothing on record to show about income of the deceased. He further submitted that towards the funeral expenses as well as towards non-pecuniary damages also, the correct figure is arrived at by the learned Member of the M.A.C.T. and therefore, there is no need to interfere in the award passed by the learned Member. 9. On the basis of above material, the following points arise for my determination :- (i) Whether the compensation awarded by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is a just compensation towards the pecuniary as well as the non-pecuniary damages? (ii) What order? 9. On the basis of above material, the following points arise for my determination :- (i) Whether the compensation awarded by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is a just compensation towards the pecuniary as well as the non-pecuniary damages? (ii) What order? My answer to point No. (i) is in the affirmative as regards the non-pecuniary damages; however, as regards pecuniary damages, the interference by this Court is required for the reasons to follow. The appeal is, therefore, partly allowed. REASONS: 10. There is no denial to the fact that the deceased was 14 years old at the time of the accident. The evidence on record would show that the deceased died due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor, when he was sleeping with musical instruments in the marriage pendal. Besides this, the appellants themselves pleaded and deposed that during the off season, the deceased was working as an agricultural labour. 11. These facts would reveal that while in the marriage season, the deceased occasionally used to work as a member of the musical band party and as and when the agricultural work would be available, he was working as agricultural labour. It is a known fact that agricultural work is not available throughout the year. In the circumstances, considering the fact that the deceased was a semiskilled person being a member of the musical band party and being also an agricultural labour, we can presume that the deceased had earning of Rs. 100/- per day, atleast meant for agricultural labour throughout the year. Thus, the yearly income would come to Rs. 36,000/ - per annum. 12. The learned Member has wrongly deducted 1/3rd amount towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Since the deceased was a bachelor in view of the settled position of law, it should be assumed that the deceased was expending ½ of the income towards his personal expenses. Thus, so far as the appellants are concerned, the loss would be Rs.18,000/- per annum. The learned Member has rightly applied the multiplier of 15 considering the age of the present appellants as fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of "Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & another", reported in 2009 AIR (SC) 3104 : (2009(4) ALL MR 429 (S.C.)]. The learned Member has rightly applied the multiplier of 15 considering the age of the present appellants as fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of "Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & another", reported in 2009 AIR (SC) 3104 : (2009(4) ALL MR 429 (S.C.)]. In the circumstances, the pecuniary damages or the damages towards the loss of dependency would come to Rs. 2,70,000 (Rs.18,000 x 15). Considering the fact that the deceased as well as the appellants are from illiterate agricultural labour class, in my view, the amount granted towards the funeral expenses and towards the non-pecuniary damages by the learned Member of the M.A.C.T. is just. In the circumstances, there is no need to interfere in the award in this regard. 13. In the result, the appeal is partly all owed with proportionate costs. The respondents nos. 1 and 2 are directed to pay jointly and severally a total compensation of Rs. 2,79,500/- (i.e. Rs. 2,70,000/- + Rs.9500/-), with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the recovery of the amount on the respective dates i.e. payment towards the no fault liability and payment towards the satisfaction of the award passed by the learned Member of the M.A.C.T. Appeal partly allowed.