Judgment : Parth Prateem Sahu, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the appellants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 16.01.2019 passed by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in M.A.C.C. No. 476/2015. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 09.09.2014 at about 06:15 P.M., the Respondent No. 1 was driving his motorcycle bearing registration no. CG 04 KA 6026 in a rash and negligent manner and the said offending vehicle dashed Smt. Geeta Bai Sahu near Baruwadih and caused accident. Due to the said accident, Smt. Geeta Bai Sahu suffered severe injuries and she was taken to hospital at Pallari for treatment, where she succumbed to her injuries. Subsequent to the said accident, an FIR was registered against the Respondent No. 1 bearing Crime No. 322/2014, P.S. Palari, District - Raipur for the offence punishable under Sections 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. The claimants/appellants in the claim application filed before the learned Claims Tribunal have pleaded that the deceased Smt. Geeta Bai Sahu was aged about 58 years on the date of accident. She was receiving family pension of Rs. 8373/- after death of her late husband. After death of the deceased Smt. Geeta Bai Sahu, appellants/claimants filed application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs. 8,33,000/-. 4. The Non-Applicants No. 1 & 2 submitted reply opposing the pleadings in the claim application and submitted that, the claimants have not impleaded the other dependents of the deceased as party in the claim application. They also pleaded that the Non-Applicant No. 1 on the date of accident had not gone to Village Bharuwadih. The offending vehicle was not owned by the Non-Applicant No. 1 and even, the said vehicle was not being driven by the Non-Applicant No. 1. They further pleaded that claimants are not dependent on the deceased in any manner. 5. The learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the facts and evidence brought on record held that the death of deceased was a result of motor accidental injuries suffered by her, fastened liability to pay the amount of compensation upon the Non-applicants jointly and severally, awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the claimants as compensation. 6. 5. The learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the facts and evidence brought on record held that the death of deceased was a result of motor accidental injuries suffered by her, fastened liability to pay the amount of compensation upon the Non-applicants jointly and severally, awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the claimants as compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding only a sum of Rs. 50,000/- against death of mother of the claimants i.e. Smt. Geeta Bai Sahu. He contended that at the time of accident, mother of the claimants was drawing pension of Rs. 8,840/- per month on which, the claimants were also dependent. Learned Claims Tribunal recording a finding that the claimants were not dependent upon the income of the deceased has awarded only Rs. 50,000/- as total compensation which is erroneous. He submits that the claimants being children of the deceased are having right to apply for compensation as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Vs. Birender & Ors. reported in (2020) 11 SCC 356 . 7. On the other hand, learned counsels for the Respondents opposes the submission of counsel for the appellants/claimants and would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal considering the facts and evidence available on record have recorded a finding that the Claimant/Appellant No. 1 being the major earning son and the Claimants No. 2 to 6 being the married daughters were not dependent upon the deceased. He next contended that even the residence of the Appellant No. 1 is in different village and the deceased was residing at a different village and therefore, also, it cannot be said that the Appellant/Claimant No. 1 was dependent upon income of the deceased. Compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the claim case. 9. Claimants in their claim application have pleaded that the deceased was aged about 50 years and was earning Rs. 8,373/- per month and expending 2/3rd of her income upon the claimants. Dharmendra Sahu (AW-1) who is son of deceased, in his examination-in-chief stated that his mother was getting pension of Rs. 8,814/- which was being expended by her, upon her and also sharing expenditure of his house. 8,373/- per month and expending 2/3rd of her income upon the claimants. Dharmendra Sahu (AW-1) who is son of deceased, in his examination-in-chief stated that his mother was getting pension of Rs. 8,814/- which was being expended by her, upon her and also sharing expenditure of his house. In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted that he is residing at Bharwadih and he has not submitted any document of his residence to be at Village Gullu. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that the Appellants No. 2 to 6 are married daughters of the deceased. 10. Perusal of record of claim case would show that as per pleadings made in the claim application, deceased mother of the claimants was getting family pension amount of Rs. 8,373/- per month. She was aged about 56 years as pleaded in the claim application. Learned Claims Tribunal based on the post-mortem report assessed, age of the deceased as 63 years; there is no other documentary proof of age of the deceased and therefore, in the opinion of this Court, learned Claims Tribunal justified in assessing age of the deceased as mentioned in the post-mortem report. 11.Claimants/applicants are major married son and daughters. Dharmendra Sahu/Claimant No. 1 was examined before the learned Claims Tribunal as AW -1 and in his evidence, he has stated that he is working as Government Teacher, residing at another village. From aforementioned evidence of the Claimant No. 1, it is appearing that he is a government servant working as Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) and therefore, he will be having his own income. 12.Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the claim filed by the major sons in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Birender Singh & Ors. reported in (2020) 11 SCC 356 has observed thus:- “ 14. It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Having said that, it must necessarily follow that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the legal representative concerned was fully dependent on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only. The evidence on record in the present case would suggest that the claimants were working as agricultural labourers on contract basis and were earning meagre income between Rs 1,00,000 and Rs 1,50,000 per annum. In that sense, they were largely dependent on the earning of their mother and in fact, were staying with her, who met with an accident at the young age of 48 years.” 13.In case of Seema Rani Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Ors. reported in Civil Appeal No. 2323/2025 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 444/2025) decided on 11.02.2025 has observed thus:- “ 10. ………..Similarly, applying the exposition in Birender (Supra), there is no reason to exclude a married daughter from compensation. Therefore, in view of this, the High Court erred in excluding these dependants.” 14.Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jitender Kumar & Ors. Vs. Sanjay Prasad & Ors. reported in Civil Appeal No. 7199 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 27779/2023) while considering for the claim filed by the major sons having the independent income, taking note of the decision in the case of Birender Singh (Supra) and Seema Rani (Supra) has observed thus:- “ 14. ………… In the present case, it cannot be disputed that the claimant-appellant(s) became partner in the consultancy firm run by the deceased. Moreover, it is not in dispute that the Flour Mill being run by the deceased, is still being run by the claimant-appellant(s). In such a factual circumstance, it cannot be said that the claimant-appellant(s) were financially dependent upon the deceased. 15. Therefore, in view of the above, while the claimant-appellant(s) were not dependent upon the deceased, they are entitled to receive compensation as his legal representatives, in accordance with law. Thus, the deduction towards the loss of personal and living expenses is to be ½ (50% of the income of the deceased) in accordance with law.” 15.In case of Jitender Kumar (Supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court even after taking note of the fact that the claimants were partners of the flour mill run by his deceased father, the claimants/appellants therein were not dependent upon the deceased, held that they are entitled to receive compensation as his legal representatives in accordance with law. 16.In the case at hand also, the claimants could not be said to be dependent upon the income of the deceased, however, they are legal representatives of the deceased being son and daughters and therefore, treating the amount of pension of Rs. 8,373/- p.m. as income of the deceased and her yearly income to be Rs. 1,00,476/-. Considering that the deceased was aged about 63 years, she might be expending 75% of the amount of her income towards her personal and living expenses and upon deducting 75% towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, the loss of income would come to Rs. 25,119/- (1,00,476 – 75,357). As the deceased was 63 years of age, therefore, the appropriate multiplier would be 7, which makes the total loss of income as Rs. 1,75,833/- (25,119 X 7). The claimants will further be entitled for Rs. 15,000/- towards the loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards the funeral expenses and Rs. 40,000/- each towards the loss of parental consortium as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi , reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation , reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 . 17. For the foregoing reason, this Court proposes to recalculate the amount of compensation payable to the appellants:- S. No. Heads Compensation 1. (A)Loss of Income/Dependency 8373 X 12 = 1,00,476/- (B) Deduction of 75% towards personal and living expenses (1,00,476 X 75% = 75,357) (1,00,476 – 75,357 = 25,119/-) (D) Multiplier of 7 (25,119 X 7 = 1,75,833/-) : Rs. 1,75,833/- 2. Funeral Expenses : (+) Rs. 15,000/- 3. Loss of Estate : (+) Rs. 15,000/- 4. Loss of parental consortium to Claimant/Appellants @ Rs. 40,000/- each (40,000 X 6) : (+) Rs. 2,40,000/- Total Compensation Rs. 4,45,833/- 18.Now, the Appellants/Claimants are awarded total compensation of Rs. 4,45,833/- instead of Rs. 50,000/- as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. This enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. All the claimants will be entitled for their equal share in the compensation, so awarded. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 19.Certified copy as per rules.