These two appeals by the Insurer and the claimants are arising out of the same judgment and award dated 04/09/2004 passed in MVC No.2203/2002 on the file of the 18th Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and MACT-Iv, Bangalore (SCCH-4) (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ for short).

2. The Tribunal by its judgment and award, has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,85,000/- with interest a t6% p.a form the date of petition till the date of realization as against the claim made by the claimants for a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased Sri. Peddanna, in the road traffic accident.

3. In brief, the facts of the case are:

The claimant No.1 is the wife, claimant Nos.2 and 3 are the minor children of the deceased Sri. Peddanna and they have filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation against the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, on account of the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident, contending that, on 15.4.2002, at about 10.30 pm., deceased was travelling in a Tata Sumo bearing No.KA.05.Z.3273 to go his house at Jigani and when it came near Vijaya Bank at Kempanayakanahalli on Bannerghatta road, the driver of the said vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over it and dashed against the Tractor which was parked by the side of the road, due to which, deceased sustained grievous injuries, Immediately, he was shifted to hospital and he died on 20.4.2002. It is the further case of the claimants that , deceased was aged about 32 years, doing business in the name and style M/s. Annapurneswari Enterprises and earning Rs. 35,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- per month and looking after the welfare of the family, due to his untimely death, they have suffered both socially and economically. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in turn, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence and other material available on file, has recorded the finding of a fact that, deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident, the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurer as on the date of the accident and therefore, the Insurer is liable to indemnify the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and after assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month, deducting 1/3rd towards his personal and living expenses and adopting multiplier of ‘15’, has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,60,000/- towards loss of dependency and also awarded Rs. 25,000/- towards conventional heads and accordingly, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding the compensation of Rs. 3,85,000/- under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its deposit. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the Insurer has filed an appeal contending that, the liability fastened on the Insurer cannot be sustained and also that the quantum of compensation by the Tribunal is on higher side and it requires to be reduced and the claimants have filed an appeal contending that, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and it requires to be enhanced by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

4. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the Insurer and learned counsel appearing for claimants at considerable length of time.

5. The learned counsel for the Insurer has taken a specific ground that, the Tribunal has erred in allowing the claim petition without taking into consideration the contents of the P.M. report, which shows that the death was caused due to septicemia and not due to the fracture of elbow and that the involvement of the offending vehicle in the alleged accident was not intimated or reported to the police immediately after the accident or case was not registered on the basis of the information given by the hospital where the deceased was taken for treatment and it proves beyond all reasonable do