The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of notional income, entitlement for future prospects, and parental consortium in determining compensation under the MV Act.

JUDGMENT

S.G. Pandit, J. - Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of parties, the matter is finally heard and disposed of by this order.

2. The claimants-appellants are before this court not being satisfied with quantum of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 27.08.2016, passed by X Additional District and Sessions Judge and Member Additional MACT, Belagavi in MVC No.1274/2015, praying for enhancement of compensation.

3. Claimants are wife and children of the deceased Sanjay Kishan Beble. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the MV Act seeking compensation for the death of Sanjay Kisan Beble in a road traffic accident. It is stated that on 06.04.2015 at about 07.45p.m. the deceased was proceeding on a cycle, at that time, the driver of the tractor bearing No.MH-10/S-3903 drove the said vehicle in rash and negligent manner and dashed to the deceased. Due to which, he sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Krishna Hospital, Karad and subsequently he succumbed to the said accidental injuries.

4. It is stated that the claimants have spent Rs.50,000/- towards medical bills and also spent Rs.50,000/- towards transportation of the dead body, funeral expenses, ceremonial days and other expenses.

5. It is stated that the deceased was aged about 29 years and was doing labour work, getting daily income of Rs.800/- which he spent towards maintaining the family.

6. On issuance of notice, both respondents appeared before the tribunal and filed their written statements separately to the claim petition. The respondent No.1 -owner of the tractor denied the entire case of the claimants and further stated that the driver of the tractor had valid driving licence as on the date of accident. Further, he contended that the vehicle was covered with insurance policy issued by respondent No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

7. The second respondent-insurance company in its statement of objection denied the claim petition averments and contended that the claimants are permanent residents of Maharashtra State and the accident had taken place in Maharashtra State and the tribunal had no jurisdiction to try the claim petition. As there is violation of the provisions of the Act and rules, the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

8. In support of their case, the claimant No.1 wife of the deceased got examined herself as PW1 apart from marking Ex.P1 to 9. No evidence led on behalf of respondents, except marking Ex.R1 the insurance policy.

9. The tribunal on consideration of the material on record both oral and documentary, awarded a total compensation at Rs.9,94,900/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its payment.

10. While awarding the above compensation, the tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month and adopted the multiplier of 17' since the deceased was aged about 29 years and deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased. The claimants being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, are before this court praying for enhancement of the compensation.

11. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and the learned counsel for the respondent -Insurance company. Perused the material on record.

12. The learned counsel for the appellantsclaimants would submit that the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal is on the lower side and prayed for enhancement of the compensation. Further, contended that the tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month which is also on the lower side. He submits that the deceased was doing labour work and was getting daily income of Rs.800/- which would be Rs.24,000/- per month. But, the tribunal without taking note of the evidence of PW1, assessed the income at Rs.6,000/- per month, which needs to be revised. Further, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submits that the claimants would