JUDGMENT

S.G. Pandit, J. - The claimants are before this court in this appeal praying for enhancement of compensation not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under common judgment and award dated 21.04.2012, passed by the Member, MACT-XII, Bellary in MVC No.1149/2011.

2. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of M.V. Act claiming compensation for the death of Mutte Gangappa in a road traffic accident. It is stated that the accident occurred on 29.06.2010 at about 10.00 p.m. involving lorry bearing No.KA-17/A-4961 and tractor and trailer bearing No.KA-34/T-9355/T- 9408. The accident involving above vehicles and the accidental death of the deceased is not in dispute in this appeal. The claimants are in this appeal praying for enhancement of compensation.

3. The tribunal based on the material produced before it, awarded total compensation of Rs.3,59,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization on the following heads:

4. While awarding the above compensation, the tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month. The claimants not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation are before this court in this appeal praying for enhancement of compensation.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance company through video conference. Perused the material placed on record.

6. The learned counsel for the appellantsclaimants would submit that the deceased was an agriculturist and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Without looking into the evidence of PW1 wife of the deceased, the tribunal assessed the income at Rs.4,500/- which is on the lower side and prays for enhancement of the compensation.

7. The learned counsel for the claimants further submits that the tribunal committed an error in saddling the liability on respondent Nos.1 and 2 owner and driver of the vehicle. He submits that the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance company would submit that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is just compensation, which needs no interference.

9. Further, the learned counsel submits that in the absence of any material to establish the income of the deceased the tribunal has rightly assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month, which needs no interference.

10. Further the learned counsel submits that the tribunal has rightly saddled the liability on respondent Nos.1 and 2 owner and driver of the vehicle since the driver had no driving licence at all as on the date of accident.

11. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the material placed on record, the following points would arise for consideration.

1. Whether the income assessed by the tribunal at Rs.4,500/- per month of the deceased is proper and correct?

2. Whether the claimants would be entitled for enhancement of compensation?

3. Whether the claimants have made out a case for pay and recovery by following Full Bench judgment of this court in MFA No.30131/2010?

12. Answer to the above point No.1 in the negative and point Nos.2 and 3 are in the affirmative for the following reasons :

13. The accident is of the year 2010. It is stated by the claimants that the deceased was an agriculturist and earning Rs.10,000/- per month, but no material placed on record to establish the income of the deceased. In the absence of any material, the tribunal assess