The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation in motor accident claims, considering the income of the deceased, number of dependents, and applicable legal precedents for deduction towards personal expenses.

JUDGMENT

K.S. Hemalekha, J. - This appeal is preferred by the claimants, who are the wife, child and parents of the deceased Ramesh assailing the judgment and award dated 16/05/2020, passed in MVC. No. 840/2018 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hosadurga ("the Tribunal" for short) seeking enhancement of compensation, whereby the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 49,77,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

2. The claimants filed the claim petition MVC. No. 840/2018 seeking compensation of Rs. 89,00,000/- on account of death of one Ramesh who died in a road traffic accident that occurred on 29/01/2018 at 6.00 p.m. when the deceased was proceeding on Honda motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-16/EH-7026 as a pillion rider, when he reached near APMC gate at Alankar bar on Huliyaru-Hosadurga Road, the rider of another motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-16/EJ-0519 rode the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased's motorcycle, due to the impact the deceased Ramesh fell down and sustained grievous injuries and on 25/05/2018 he succumbed to the injuries.

3. It is the contention of the claimants that the deceased was hale and healthy at the time of accident and was aged about 35 years, was earning Rs. 50,000/- per month as he was working as a conductor and was also doing agricultural work. The claimants are solely dependent upon the income of the deceased and hence, sought for compensation.

4. In pursuance of the notice issued by the Tribunal, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 appeared, but respondent No. 1 did not choose to file any objection. Respondent No. 2 insurance company filed objections contending that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of the offending motorcycle (No. KA 15/EJ 0519) and the rider did not possess valid and effective driving license as on the date of the accident and as such, the owner of the vehicle violated the terms of the policy and as such, sought to absolve the liability.

5. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings framed the following three issues:

"1. Whether petitioners prove that deceased Ramesh succumbed to injuries in RTA that occurred on 29/01/2018 at 6-00 P.M. at APMC gate near Alankar Bar on Hosadurga-Huliyar main road in Hosadurga Town, when deceased was riding on Hero Shine motor cycle bearing No. KA-16-EH-7026, due to rash and negligent riding of motor cycle bearing No. KA-16-EJ-0519 by its rider?

2. Whether the petitioners prove that they are legal heirs of deceased Ramesh?

3. Whether petitioners are entitled for the compensation? If so, to what extent and form whom?

4. What order or award?"

6. In order to substantiate the contention of the claimants, claimant No. 1, the wife of the deceased examined herself as PW. 1 and got marked 22 documents as Exs. P-1 to P-22. On the other hand, respondent No. 2 examined Dr. Chaitra as RW. 2 and technician of Max Hospital, Shimoga as RW. 2 and got marked Exs. R-1 and R-2.

7. The Tribunal on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle bearing registration No. KA 15/EJ 0519 by its rider and also held that the claimants have proved that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Ramesh and fastened the liability on the insurance company awarding compensation of Rs. 49,77,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from petition till the date of deposit.

8. Being unsatisfied with the award of compensation by the Tribunal, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants. No appeal is preferred by the insurance company.

9. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No. 2/insurance company and perused the material on record.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant, Sr