The court's decision was influenced by the Motor Vehicles Act, Section 166, which provides for compensation in case of death or permanent disablement due to a motor vehicle accident.

1. Though this appeal is posted for orders, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.

2. This appeal by the claimants is directed against the judgment and award dated 13th November 2012, passed in M.V.C. No. 17 of 2012, by the Senior Civil Judge & Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Challakere, (for short, Tribunal) for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 3,50,500/- awarded in favour of the claimants as against their claim for Rs. 25,00,000/- is inadequate.

3. The facts in brief are that, the claimants are the wife, children and mother of the deceased Basavaraj. They filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that, at about 1:30 p.m. on 12-12-2011, when the deceased Basavaraj and his relative Palaksha were moving in the Motor Cycle, bearing Registration No. KA-16/V-8224, in which the deceased was a pillion rider, from Challakere to Dodderi village, he met with an accident, on account of rash and negligent riding by the rider of the said vehicle. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained severe head injury and other bodily injuries all over the body. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to Challakere Government Hospital and thereafter referred to Chitradurga Government Hospital and again shifted to Davanagere. But, unfortunately, due to the gravity of the injuries sustained, the deceased succumbed to the same on 20-12-2011 at C.G. Hospital, Davangere.

4. It is the case of the appellants that, the deceased was aged about 50 years and doing coolie work, earning a sum of Rs. 9,000/- per month and hale and healthy prior to the accident. On account of the untimely death of the deceased, the appellants have lost the love and affection, inspiration and guidance, apart from social, financial and moral support and therefore, they have to be compensated reasonably.

5. On account of the death of the deceased the appellants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 13th November, 2012. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs. 3,50,500/- under different heads, with 6% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of payment. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants are in appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation.

6. We have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and heard the learned counsel appearing for appellants and also the Insurer, for quite some time.

7. Learned counsel appearing for claimants/appellants vehemently submitted that, the Tribunal grossly erred in taking the income of the deceased at only Rs. 3,000/- per month. He submits that the claimants have stated that the deceased was aged about 50 years and earning a sum of Rs. 9,000/- per month by doing coolie work. But, disbelieving the same, the Tribunal, without any basis has assessed the income of the deceased at only Rs. 3,000/- per month. The same is liable to be re-assessed. Therefore, he submitted that, reasonable compensation may be awarded, by adopting proper multiplier of 13. Further, he vehemently submitted that the Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased instead of 1/4th towards the personal expenses of the deceased, as the claimants are five in number. He also submitted that the compensation awarded by Tribunal towards conventional heads is also on the lower side and liable to be enhanced reasonably, in the light of the latest decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of decisions.

8. Further, learned counsel appearing for claimants vehemently submitted that the rate of interest awarde