JUDGMENT :

H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD, J.

1. This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 26.4.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 18.2.2012 the deceased Mullerea S. Erappa was walking on the extreme left side of BM Road near SVS weigh Bridge, in Periyapatna Town, at that time, a motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-12-J-9966 which was being ridden in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act on the ground that the deceased was aged about 55 years at the time of accident and was working as coolie and earning Rs. 300 to 400/- per day. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000/- along with interest.

4. On service of summons, the respondent No. 2 appeared through Counsel and filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. It was further pleaded that the rider of the motorcycle was not having valid licence as on the date of the accident. The liability if any, is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. It was further pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition. The respondent No. 1 did not appear inspite of service of notice and was placed ex-parte.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimants, in order to prove their case, examined claimant No. 1 as P.W. 1 and another witness as P.W. 2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex. P1 to Ex. P11. On behalf of respondents, neither any witness was examined nor any document was produced. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its rider, as a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 1,93,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

6. The learned Counsel for the claimants has raised the following contentions:

Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs. 300 to 400 per day by working as coolie. But the Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased as merely as Rs. 3,000/-.

Secondly, the deceased was aged about 58 years and multiplier applicable to his age group is 9'. But the Tribunal has wrongly applied 7' multiplier.

Thirdly, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others [AIR 2017 SC 5157], in case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 10% of the established income towards 'future prospects' should be the warrant where the deceased was between the age group of 50-60 years.

Fourthly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the conventional heads is on the lower side.

Hence, the learned Counsel appearing for the claimants prays for allowing the appeal.

7. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has raised the following counter-contentions:

Firstly, even though the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs. 300 to 400/- per day by working as coolie, the same is not established by the claimants by producing document