The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the insurance company to provide sufficient evidence to support its contentions, and the court's authority to modify compensation based on relevant legal provisions and evidence.

JUDGMENT

S.G. Pandit, J. - The Insurance Company is before this Court in this appeal aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 28.06.2010 passed in MVC No.778/2007 on the file of the III Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and Member, Addl. MACT, Belagavi (for short, 'Tribunal').

2. Even though the appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally and disposed of by this judgment.

3. The appellant is respondent No.2 and respondent Nos.1 to 5 are the claimants in the above stated MVC which was filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation for the death of one Balappa Dharennavar. It is stated that on 10.3.2007, when the deceased was going towards Hidkal Dam cross on service road of NH4, a motor cycle bearing No.MH-09/AX-5597 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the deceased; due to which, he died on the spot. It is stated that the deceased was aged 48 years and was earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month by doing agricultural work.

4. On service of notice, respondent No.1-owner of the vehicle appeared before the Tribunal but not filed any objections. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company appeared and filed its statement denying the claim petition averments. It also denied the occurrence of the accident and contended that they are not liable to pay compensation. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 also appeared before the Tribunal and filed their statements claiming compensation stating that they are also legal heirs of the deceased Balappa Dharennavar.

5. In support of the claim petition, claimant No.1-wife of the deceased examined herself as PW1 apart from marking 22 documents as per Exs.P1 to P22. Respondent No.3 was examined as RW1 and Manager of the Insurance Company was examined as RW2 apart from marking 16 documents as per Exs.R1 to R16. The Tribunal on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, awarded total compensation of Rs.3,82,000/- with interest at 6% per annum and directed the insurance company to deposit the entire compensation amount in Court till rival claimants resolve their dispute. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company is before this Court in this appeal challenging the quantum of compensation as well as liability fastened on it.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company and learned counsel for respondent No.6 physically, whereas other counsels for the claimants appeared through Video Conferencing. Perused the original records.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal committed an error in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company. Learned counsel would submit that the rider of the motor cycle was in a drunken condition at the time of the accident and charge sheet had been filed against the rider of the said motor cycle. The Tribunal without taking note of the same, proceeded to fasten the liability on the insurance company. Thus, he prays for absolving the insurance company from its liability to pay compensation.

8. Learned counsel without prejudice to the above contention would submit that the Tribunal while awarding the compensation wrongly adopted the multiplier of 13 taking the age of the deceased as 48 years. It is his submission that Ex.R3-concluded court proceedings would indicate that the age of the deceased was 30 years as on the date of filing Crl.Misc.No.2/1975. It is his submission that if the deceased was aged 30 years in the year 1975, as on the date of the accident in the year 2007, the deceased would have been 62 years. Therefore, it is his submission that correct multiplier would be 7, and hence, the Tribunal committed an error in adopting multiplier of 13. Thus, he prays for reducing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.6-owner of the offending vehicle would submit that the contention of the insurance company that the rider of the motor cycle was in an inebriated condition has not