JUDGMENT :

S. SUJATHA, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 15.09.2018 passed in MVC No.5021/2016 on the file of the III Additional Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-18) ['Tribunal’ for short].

2. The claimants being the parents of the deceased Nitin Kumar instituted the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation for the death of their son in the road traffic accident.

3. It was averred in the claim petition that on 11.05.2016 while Nitin Kumar was proceeding along with his two other friends in a car – Maruti Ritz bearing registration No.WB-06-A-9740, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said vehicle who dashed the vehicle to the lamp post No.PWD/PSR/18, the deceased and other occupants sustained grievous injuries. Immediately they were shifted to SSKM hospital, Kolkata where the doctor declared that the Nitin Kumar was brought dead.

4. It was contended that the deceased was aged about 27 years at the time of the accident and was working as a software engineer and senior copy writer in advertising company and drawing income of Rs.49,956/-plus other allowances per month. Due to the sudden demise of their son, they have suffered a lot and lost their bread earner. It was contended that the said motor vehicle accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and as such the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. On these set of facts and grounds, they sought for compensation.

5. In response to the notice issued, respondents appeared and contested the claim. The respondent No.1 – insurer has contended that the compensation claimed by the claimants is highly excessive, exorbitant and imaginary. The driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the said offending vehicle. Admitting the issuance of policy in respect of the offending vehicle, it was contended that neither the owner of the vehicle nor the jurisdictional police have complied mandatory provisions of Section 134[c] and Section 158[6] of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in furnishing the better particulars.

6. The respondent No.2 denying the petition averments stated that the vehicle was insured with the first respondent – insurer and the policy was in force as on the date of the accident. The driver of the offending vehicle in order to avoid collision to the two persons, who were crossing the road in a negligent manner, accidentally hit the lamp post which resulted in the death of the Nitin Kumar. The driver of the offending vehicle had valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. Liability, if any, has to be fastened on the insurer.

7. On the basis of the pleadings, issues were framed and answered allowing the claim petition in part awarding total compensation of Rs.25,36,780/-with interest at the rate of 9% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization.

8. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the claimants have preferred the present appeal.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submitted that the Tribunal has failed to determine the loss of dependency in consonance with the settled legal principles of law qua the material evidence on record. The compensation awarded under the conventional heads is on the lower side and the same deserves to be enhanced substantially.

10. Learned counsel for the insurer justifying the impugned judgment and award submitted that the Tribunal on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has awarded just compensation as such there is no scope for further enhancement. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

11. We have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.

12. As could be s