The main legal point established in the judgment is the calculation of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, considering factors such as loss of dependency, income, medical expenses, and appropriate multipliers for different age groups.

JUDGMENT :

Aravind Kumar, J.

1. These two appeals are directed against the judgment and award passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Belgaum in M.V.C. No. 2199/2003 dated 19.11.2012 whereunder claim petition filed by the wife of deceased under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been allowed in part and a total compensation of Rs. 43,54,424/- with interest at 6% p.a. has been granted.

2. The compensation which has been awarded by tribunal under different heads are:-

3. Appellant in M.F.A. No. 21025/2013 was the claimant in M.V.C. No. 2199/2003 who filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 80 lakhs in respect of death of Sri Vinod Dattopant Kulkarni as a result of injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident that occurred on 27.01.2000 at 5.45 p.m. It was alleged in the claim petition that deceased Sri Vinod Dattopant Kulkarni was proceeding as a pedestrian and walking towards his office on 27.01.2000 at 5.45 p.m. and at that point of time, a goods tempo bearing registration No. MEH 5913 driven in a rash and negligent manner and with a great speed endangering human life had dashed against said Sri Vinod Dattopant Kulkarni resulting in severe injuries being sustained and immediately thereafter he was admitted to KLE Hospital, Belgaum and was treated from 27.01.2000 to 14.03.2000 and again from 20.03.2000 to 03.04.2000 and on account of treatment not being fruitful resulted in his death on 03.04.2000 due to the grievous injuries sustained in the above said accident. Hence, compensation of Rs. 80 lakhs with interest was sought for.

4. On service of notice of petition, insurer-second respondent therein (appellant in M.F.A. No. 20630/2013) appeared and filed its statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition except to the extent expressly admitted thereunder. Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings framed issues for its adjudication. Claimant got herself examined as PW-1 and also examined two doctors who had treated the deceased as PWs. 2 and 3 and in all got marked 15 documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15. On behalf of insurance company, Branch Manager was examined as RW-1 and through him three documents were got marked as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3. The entire case sheet of the KLE Hospital, Belgaum, was got marked as Ex.C.1 which had been summoned by the jurisdictional tribunal. On appreciation of evidence and after consideration of rival contentions raised at the bar, tribunal has allowed the claim petition in part and awarded a sum of Rs. 43,54,424/- with interest at 6% p.a. as already noticed hereinabove.

5. The insurer of the offending vehicle is assailing the award in question contending that quantum of compensation awarded is exorbitant, excessive and not commensurate with the injuries sustained by deceased and there is no nexus between injuries and his doctor. Whereas claimant has filed M.F.A. No. 21025/2013 contending that quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal is abysmally on the lower side and it requires to be enhanced under all heads and tribunal has erred in not considering the evidence available on record in proper perspective.

6. We have heard the arguments of Sriyuths G.N. Raichur appearing for insurer and Harsh Desai, learned counsel appearing for claimant.

7. It is the contention of Mr. G.N. Raichur, learned counsel for the insurer that medical records available would demonstrate that deceased was suffering from several diseases and as such, there was no nexus between the c