The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of appropriate compensation for the legal representatives of the deceased, considering the deceased's earning capacity, future prospects, loss of dependency, and filial consortium.

JUDGMENT :

K.Somashekar, J.

Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 24.06.2015 rendered by the MACT, Bengaluru in MVC No.2228/2013 awarding compensation of Rs.12,11,991/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till deposit. Being not satisfied with the compensation awarded, the present appeal is filed.

3. The factual matrix of the appeal is that on 26.01.2013 at about 7.20 p.m., deceased S.R.Srinivasa was riding his motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-02-L-9978 from Nandagudi towards Siddnahalli, in a moderate speed by observing traffic rules with great care and caution on extreme left side of the road in front of police quarters Nandagudi. At that time, one goods auto bearing Reg.No.KA-01-AB-7871 driven by its driver with high speed in a rash and negligent manner dashed to the motor cycle from behind. Due to the said impact, the rider of the motor cycle fell down and sustained severe injuries all over the body. Immediately, the injured was shifted to MVJ Medical College Hospital, Hoskote and after the first aid, as per the advice he was shifted to NIMHANS Hospital for treatment and without there being sufficient treatment, he was taken back to MVJ Medical College Hospital and kept in ICU. On 29.01.2013 at about 7.20 a.m., S.R.Srinivas breathed his last in the said hospital.

4. It is contended that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 35 years and was hale and healthy. By working as Mason under various civil contractors at Nandagudi, was earning a sum of Rs.9,000/- p.m. and the entire income was contributed to his family. Due to his untimely death, the family of the petitioners having put to untold mental shock and financial difficulties are faced by them. Further, they have spent a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards medical, transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. It is further stated that the deceased had married the third respondent Rashmi 12 years back and since she deserted his house 3 years back, she filed maintenance case and dowry harassment case against the deceased and thereafter, she has settled with her parents. Since the parents of the deceased were old and nobody to look after them, deceased married the first petitioner 2 years back and hence, third respondent was made a formal to the proceedings. On all these grounds, the claim petition was filed before the Tribunal, seeking compensation.

5. After service of notice, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 appeared through their counsel and resisted the claim petition by filing separate written statements, denying the petition averments. First respondent remained absent throughout the proceedings and was placed as exparte.

6. Based upon the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the issues for its consideration. In order to substantiate their case, petitioner no.1 got herself examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P.18. Respondents did not chose to adduce any evidence on their behalf. After hearing arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and on evaluation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment awarding compensation of Rs.12,11,991/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till deposit. It is this judgment which is challenged under this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the approach of the Tribunal in appreciation of evidence on record, is illegal and against the law of evidence and also against the principles of settled law. It is further contended that the Tribunal has given its finding erroneously by considering the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month though he was having the capacity to earn Rs.15,000/- per month by avocation as mason. Therefore, he seeks to interfere with the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and to pass appropri