JUDGMENT :

S. SUJATHA, J.

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 02.01.2016 passed in MVC No.77/2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-14) ['Tribunal' for short] whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants/respondents has been allowed in part.

2. The claim petition was instituted by the legal representatives of the deceased Govindaraj. B.S., under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ['Act' for short] claiming compensation, on account of the death of Sri.Govindaraj.B.S., in the road traffic accident.

3. The claimants had averred in the claim petition that the deceased Govindaraj while travelling as a pillion rider along with Sri. Venkatesh who was riding the motor cycle bearing No.KA-04-EV-2381 on 05.06.204, at about 8.30 a.m., met with the accident in question owing to the negligence of the driver of the private bus bearing Reg.No.KA-06-C-5312 [offending vehicle]. It was contended that due to the sudden impact of the offending vehicle ramming against the motor cycle in which the deceased was traveling, the rider and the pillion rider both fell down and sustained severe injuries. Immediately they were shifted to A.D.Giri hospital, B.G.Nagara, for first aid and then, they were shifted to Nimhans Hospital, Bangalore and thereafter they were shifted to Panacea hospital, Basaveshwarnagar, Bangalore, for further treatment. Venkatesh -rider of the motor cycle succumbed to the injuries on 7.6.2014 and Govindaraj-the pillion rider of the vehicle died due to the injuries on 9.6.2014. The claimants contended that the deceased Govindaraj was aged about 35 years and earning Rs.30,000/-per month. Due to the sudden and untimely death of the sole bread earning member, the claimants are suffering mental agony and shock.

4. On service of notice, respondent No.1 remained absent and was place exparte. The respondent No.2 insurer appeared before the Tribunal and contested the claim by filing objections. The defence set out was that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the insured vehicle. The accident has occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the motor cycle; the insured vehicle was not involved in the accident in question; the compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive and unreasonable.

5. On the basis of the pleadings, issues were framed and answered in the affirmative, awarding total compensation of Rs.19,68,000/-with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.

6. Being aggrieved, the insurer is in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded as excessive and arbitrary.

7. Learned counsel for the insurer submitted that the material evidence on record evinces negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle. However, the claimants filed a false complaint against the driver of the offending vehicle in order to make unlawful gain.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer submitted that the income of the deceased determined at Rs.8,000/-per month without there being any documentary evidence to support the same is exorbitant. The addition of 50% made towards future prospects is not in conformity with the well established principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments. Similarly compensation awarded under the conventional heads is excessive. Accordingly, he sought for the compensation to be reduced.

9. Learned counsel for the claimants supporting the impugned judgment and award submitted that the Tribunal on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence has rightly fixed the negligence on the driver of the offending vehicle. The police have filed charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle. The insurer has failed to establish the factum of negligence on the part of the driver of the motor cycle except making false allegations. Further, it w