The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of just and reasonable compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, based on the deceased's income, dependency, and other relevant factors.

N.K. PATIL, J.

1. This appeal by the claimants is directed against the judgment and award dated 19th August, 2010, passed in MVC No. 61 of 2009, by the Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tarikere (for short, 'Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 3,56,000/- awarded in favour of the claimants as against their claim for Rs. 25,00,000/-, is inadequate. The facts in brief are that, the claimants are the wife and major children of the deceased Gopinatha. They filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 contending that, at about 10:30 p.m., on 17-3-2009, when the deceased was coming on the left side of road near Ganapathi Pendal, at B.H. Road of Tarikere, he met with an accident on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of Mahendra pick up Van bearing Registration No. KA-15/3506. Due to the impact, he fell down and sustained severe injuries over the head and lost consciousness and was immediately shifted to Government Hospital, Tarikere, where the Doctor gave first aid and referred to higher Centre for better treatment and subsequently he was shifted to Nanjappa Hospital, Shimoga and admitted there. At the said Hospital, CT Scan was done, which revealed multiple fractures in head. Thereafter, the deceased was shifted to Mc. Gann Hospital, Shimoga, where he was treated as in-patient from 17-3-2009 to 25-3-2009. Ultimately, he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident.

2. It is the case of the appellants that, the deceased was aged about 45 years and a Banana Merchant, earning more than a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month and was 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.

3. 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 19th August, 2010. 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. 3,56,000/- 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.

4. 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 sometime.

5. 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. She submits that the claimants have stated that the deceased was aged about 45 years and doing banana business, earning more than a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month and the only earning member in the family. 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 reassessed. Therefore, she submitted that, reasonable compensation may be awarded, by adopting proper multiplier and deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased.

Further, she submitted that the compensation awarded by Tribunal under the conventional heads is also on the lower side and liable to be redetermined, by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal.

She also vehemently submitted that the Tribunal is also not justified in directing the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle to indemnify the award. To substantiate the said submission, she submitted that the policy of insurance is