The main legal point established in the judgment is the proper assessment of the deceased's income and the application of the multiplier for loss of dependency in determining the compensation.

B. Veerappa, J.

1. Claimants who are father, mother and younger brother of the deceased are before this court for enhancement of compensation against the Judgment and Award dated 28.06.2014 made in MVC. No. 578/2010 on the file of Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Fast Track Court, Vijayapur awarding compensation of Rs.10,05,000/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of the petition till realization.

2. It is the case of the claimants before Tribunal that on 30.03.2010 deceased Kiran Narayan Pawar and the injured were travelling in Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No.MH-13/AP-9468 at about 02.15 P.M. from Sholapur to Pandhrapur and near Kamati village, a Container bearing Reg.No.TN-01/AD-3143 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Motor Cycle due to which the deceased sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. It is further case of the claimants that the deceased was hale and healthy and he was working as a journalist/reporter and he was earning more than Rs.25,000/- per month. Therefore, sought for the compensation as prayed for.

3. The respondent No.1 remained absent and was placed ex-parte. The Insurance Company-respondent No.2 filed written statement denying the entire claim averments made in the claim petition and admitted that the Container in question was insured with respondent No.2 as on the date of accident. Respondent No.2 denied the age, income and occupation of the deceased. It is specifically contended that accident has taken place in Maharastra State and petitioners are residing in Maharastra State cause of action arise in the same State. Hence under the provisions of Section 166 (2) of Motor Vehicle Act, the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Therefore, sought for dismissal of claim petition.

4. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal has framed following issues;

1. Whether petitioners prove that on 30.03.2010 at 02.15 P.M. near Kamati village on Solapur-Pandharpur road, the road traffics accident took place due to actionable negligence of driver of the vehicle i.e., HGV Double Decker (Container) bearing its Reg.No.TN-01/AD-3143 by which deceased Kiran Narayan Pawar, sustained injuries and succumbed to the said injuries?

2. Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?

3. What Order or award?

5. The claimant No.1/father of the deceased was examined as PW.1 and marked the documents Exs.P.1 to P.18. Respondent No.2 neither led evidence nor produced any documents.

6. The Tribunal considering the entire material on record, recorded the findings that the claimants proved that the accident occurred on 30.03.2010 was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle i.e., HGV Double Decker (Container) bearing its Reg.No.TN-01/AD-3143 and they are entitled compensation. Accordingly, by the impugned judgment and award, awarded compensation of Rs.10,05,000/- with 6% interest p.a. from the date of petition till realization. Hence, the present appeal is filed by the claimants for further enhancement.

7. The Insurance Company has not filed any appeal against the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.

9. Sri S.S. Mamadapur, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal awarding compensation Rs.10,05,000/- with 6% interest p.a. is on the lower side and same is contrary to the material on record. He further contended that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the Ex.P.12/appointment letter which clearly indicates that the deceased was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. Therefore, Tribunal is not justified in taking monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/-. He further contended that the Tribunal has awarded only meager compensation under the other heads which requires further enhancement and that the Tribunal has committed an error in applying the multiplier 15 taking into c