This appeal is directed against the judgment and award

dated 13.09.2019 passed in MVC No.532/2019 on the file of the II

Additional District and Sessions Judge and MACT, Belagavi seeking

enhancement of compensation.

2.

We refer the parties as per their ranking before the

Tribunal, for the sake of convenience.

This matter was listed for hearing on admission; With

the consent of both the learned counsels, it was taken up for final

disposal.

Brief facts of the case of the petitioners before the

Tribunal were that, on 10.01.2019 at about 3.30 p.m. the

deceased Ashok was riding the motorcycle bearing No.MH-10/CZ-

8634 on Sangli road. At that time, the driver of the goods lorry

bearing No.MH-12/QW-3309, drove the same in rash and negligent

manner and dashed against the motorcycle. Due to the impact,

Ashok sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

The petitioners are his wife and children and were depending upon

4

the earnings of the deceased. With these reasons they claimed

compensation of Rs.29,97,900/-.

5.

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have denied the claim of the

petitioners. Respondent No.1 has contended that driver of the

offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence to drive

the vehicle. It was insured with respondent No.2. In the event, if

the compensation is awarded, respondent No.2 be directed to pay

the same.

Respondent No.2 in its defence has stated that deceased was

carrying two pillion riders in his motorcycle at the time of the

accident and violated the conditions of permit. Therefore,

respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation and prayed

to dismiss the petition.

6.

The Tribunal has framed necessary issues.

7.

Petitioners on their behalf examined P.W.1 and got

marked Exs.P1 to P17. Respondents have examined R.W.1 and got

marked Ex.R1.

8.

The Tribunal appreciating the pleadings and evidence,

by the impugned judgment dated 13.09.2019, partly allowed the

5

petition directing the respondents to pay compensation of

Rs.11,06,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. The same is

challenged in the present appeal seeking enhancement of

compensation.

9.

We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel

for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

10.

The following points arise for our determination:

i)

Whether

the

petitioners

are

entitled

for

enhancement of compensation, as sought for?

ii)

What order?

11.

The Tribunal by appreciating the pleadings and

evidence on record held that accident was taken place due to rash

and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver and the

contention of respondent No.2 that deceased was carrying two

pillion riders against the traffic rules and therefore, respondent

No.2 was not liable to pay compensation was rejected by the

Tribunal and it was not challenged by the respondents. Hence,

there is no need to interfere with the said finding.

6

12.

The Tribunal on the basis of Ex.P11 accepted the age of

the deceased as 50 years 7 months and his earnings as Rs.9,000/-

p.m. and applied multiplier ‘11’ and calculated the compensation.

The learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended

that deceased was aged about 50 years at the time of the accident,

since he had not completed 51 years, his age has to be considered

as 50 years for calculation of the future prospectus as well as

multiplier. He further contended that Tribunal has not considered

future prospects of the deceased for assessment of the income. He

has also contended that deceased was earning Rs.21,000/- p.m. by

working in a private firm, that was not considered by the Tribunal.

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under conventional

heads is on the lower side and hence, prayed to enhance the same.

13.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has contended

that there were no records to show that deceased was earning

Rs.21,000/- p.m. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly considered the

notional income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/- p.m. and it does not

call for any in