The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment and enhancement of compensation in motor vehicle accident cases based on the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and relevant case law.

JUDGMENT

B.V.Nagarathna, J. - Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, it is heard finally.

2. The appellants are claimants, who have sought enhancement of compensation by assailing the judgment and award dated 18/10/2014, passed in MVC.No.193/2013, by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for the sake of convenience).

3. Briefly stated, the facts are, the husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellant No.2, Mahadevaiah was

walking on Varadenahalli-Mahadevapura Road, Motaganahalli, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagaram District, on 02/12/2012 at about 4.00 p.m. At that time, a heavy goods vehicle - lorry bearing No.KA-14/A-2742 came in a high speed and rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased from behind. As a result of the impact, Mahadevaiah fell down and died on the spot. Postmortem examination was conducted on the dead body of Mahadevaiah and handed over to the family members for his last rites. Contending that Mahadevaiah was hale and healthy and he was an agriculturist and milk vendor, earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month and maintaining his family from the said amount and further contending that his death had caused suffering, mental shock and agony as he was the only earning member of the family, the claimants filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act" for short).

4. In response to the notices of the Tribunal, the respondents appeared and filed their statements of objection.

5. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition and contended that they were not liable to

pay any compensation as there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. They contended that the lorry was insured by respondent No.1 with respondent No.2/insurer and respondent No.2/insurer contended that the satisfaction of the claim would be subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. Both respondents contended that the claim made by the claimants to an extent of Rs.40,00,000/- for the death of Mahadevaiah was exorbitant and excessive and they sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Tribunal formulated the following issues:

(i) Whether the petitioner proves that Mahadevaiah S/o. Ganga Revanna died on 02/12/2012 at about 4.00 p.m., on Varadenahalli - Mahadevapura Road, Motaganahalli, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara District, in an accident arising due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of HGV Lorry bearing No.K-14/A-2742?

(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, how much and from whom?

(iii) What order or award?

7. In support of their case, the claimants examined the son of deceased Mahadevaiah as PW.1. He produced twelve documents, which were marked as Exs.P- 1 to P-12, while the respondents did not let-in any evidence.

8. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the Tribunal answered issue No.1 in the affirmative and issue No.2 also in the affirmative by awarding compensation of Rs.8,87,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of claim petition till realization. Being aggrieved by the inadequate compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have preferred this appeal.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and learned counsel for respondent No.2/insurer and perused the material on record as well as the trial Court records.

10. Appellants' counsel contended that the accident occurred in December 2012. The deceased Mahadevaiah was having income from agricultural operations and through milk vending business. That in the absence of there being any corroborative evidence, the Tribunal ought to have assessed the notional income realistically. He contended that the Tribunal has assessed the notional income at Rs.6,000/- per month only, which is very meager. Therefore, he sought for enhancement of the same.

11. He further submitted that ha