The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation under various heads, including loss of dependency, loss of consortium, and funeral expenses, based on the notional income and future prospects of the deceased, as well as the entitlement of the claimants to compensation under different categories.

JUDGMENT

K.S.HEMALEKHA J.

1. The claimants have preferred this appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation by assailing the judgment and award dtd. 24/3/2018 passed in MVC No.24/2016 by the II Addl. M.A.C.T & Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bidar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short).

2. The claimants filed a claim petition under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.79.94 lakhs on account of death of one Sanjeevkumar, contending that on 18/12/2015 at about 22.00 hours on Bhalki Bidar road, when the deceased was returning to his home at Kon Melkunda by walk and came near Siddeshwar cross, a Cruiser Jeep bearing Reg.No.KA.39.0643 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, due to which the deceased fell on the road and sustained grievous injuries on the vital parts of the body and died on the spot. The claimants are the wife, minor children and the parents of the deceased Sanjeevkumar. The deceased was hale and healthy and was aged about 32 years at the time of the accident and he was doing mason work and was earning more than Rs.1,000.00 per day and also earning around Rs.150.00 per day by doing milk vending work and thus, contended that the deceased was earning Rs.34,500.00 per month. The claimants were solely dependent upon the deceased for their livelihood and he was the only breadwinner of the family.

3. On issuance of notice by the Tribunal, respondent No.1-owner of the offending vehicle and respondent No.2-insurance company appeared and filed their written statement.

4. Respondent No.1-owner of the vehicle denied the occurrence of the accident and the negligence on the part of the driver of the Cruiser Jeep bearing Reg.No.KA.39.0643.

5. Respondent No.2 - insurance company contended that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and also contended that the owner of the vehicle has violated the conditions of the policy and the driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident.

6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following: ISSUES

1. Whether the claimants prove that Sanjeevkumar died in the motor vehicle accident, that occurred on 18/12/2015 at about 2200 hours near Siddeshwar cross infront of land of Srimanth Talwade on Bhalki-Bidar road on account of the rash and negligent driving of the cruiser Jeep bearing No.KA.39.0643 by its driver?

2. Whether the claimants prove that they are entitled for the compensation? To what extent and from whom?

3. What order or decree?

7. In order to substantiate their case, claimant No.1-the wife of deceased Sanjeevkumar examined herself as PW.1 and one witness as PW.2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9. On the other hand, respondents did no adduce any evidence, but got marked one document at Ex.R1.

8. On the basis of the pleadings, evidence and material on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Cruiser Jeep bearing Reg.No.KA.39.0643 and awarded a compensation of Rs.8,13,000.00along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization under the following heads:

Loss of dependency	Rs. 7,68,000/-
Loss of love and affection	Rs. 20,000/-
Transportation of dead body	Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of consortium for petitioner No. 1	Rs. 10,000/-
Total	Rs. 8,13,000/-

9. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have preferred the present appeal.

10. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent No.2-insurance company and perused the material on record.

11. Sri Babu H. Metagudda, learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the deceased was hale and healthy, aged about 32 years at the time of accident and