:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD Dated this the 25 th day of November 2011 Before THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.N.NAGAMOHAN DAS Miscellaneous First Aooeal No.22287/2009 (MV) BETWEEN: The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., The Divisional Manager, Saraswati Sadan, PB Road, Dharwad, by its Regional Office, No.2-B, Unity Building Annexe, Mission road, Bangalore-560027. Represented by its Regional Manager. . . .Appellant (By Sri. Ravi G.Sabhahit, Advocate) AND: 1. Smt. Gangawa, W/o Shivappa Ankad, Age: 30 years, 0cc: household work, 2. Kumari Jayashree, d/o Shivappa Ankad, Age: 8 years, 0cc: Student, 3. Channabasappa d/o Shivappa Ankad, Age: 6 years, 0cc: Nil, 4. Smt. Parawa, W/o Andapa Ankad, Age: 57 years, 0cc: household work, r :2: 4 St 5. Andappa Veerappa Ankad, Age: 62 years, 0cc: Agril., All are Rio Hirewaddatti, Tq: Mundaragi. 6. Madukeshwar Rangappa Baraker. Age: 40 years, 0cc: Business, R/o Belawadi Nagar, Mandaragi. . . .Respondents (By Sri. Basavaraj M.Mekki, Advocate for RI to R5) This miscellaneous first appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and award dated 2.3.2009 passed in MVC No.192/2007 on the file of the District & Sessions Judge, & Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gadag, awarding compensation of ?5,94,000l- with interest @6% p.a. from the date of eptition till the date of deposit. This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court delivered the following: JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 2 id March 2009 in MVC No.192/2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Gadag. 2. In a motor accident on 26 th October 2007, one Shivappa died. Petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioner Nos.2 r :3: and 3 are the minor children and petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant, firstly, contends that the Tribunal committed an error in holding that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. I decline to accept this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. Ex.P.1 is the copy of the FIR, Ex.P.2 is the complaint, Ex.P.3 is the spot panchanama and Ex.P.5 is the MVI Report. No criminal case is lodged against the rider of the scooter involved in the accident. A criminal case is registered only against the driver of the lorry. Even the driver of the lorry is not examined. On the other hand, the claimants examined an eye witness i.e., P.W.2. By considering this evidence on record, the Tribunal rightly held that on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver, the accident had taken place. This finding of the tribunal is supported by evidence on record and I find no justifiable ground to interfere with the same. -1 S :4: 4. On the date of the accident, the deceased was aged about 35 years and the Tribunal has applied 15 multiplier and actually it should have been more. So also, the Tribunal deducted more income towards personal expenses at 1I3 instead of 115 th In the circumstances, compensation awarded under the head loss of dependency cannot be said to be arbitrary or on the higher side. I find no justifiable ground to interfere with the same. Accordingly, appeal is hereby dismissed. The amount in deposit be remitted to the Tribunal for disbursement in terms of the award. Sd/s JUDGE Kms