:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD Dated this the 9 th day of NovE.mber 2011 Before THE HON’BLE MRJUSTICE HNNAGAMOHAN DAS 2448/2OIIMV BETWEEN: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co, LtcL, Belgaum, Represented by the Authorized Signatory, The Law Officer, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd, 4 th Floor, VAKalaburgi Mansion, Opp. Municipal Corporation, Lamington Road, Hubli580020, Appellant (By Sri, MKSoudagar, Advocate) AND: 1. Smt. Savita, Wio Mailikarjun Jagjampi, Age: 39 years Ccc: household work, Rio: Plot No,14, Sector N.o3, Shivabasav Nagar, lal & Dist: Belgaurn. 2. Kurnar Krishna, 5/0 Mallikarjun Jagajampi, Age: 15 years, Ccc: Student, R/o: Plot No.14. Sector No.3, Shivabasav Nagar, Tal & Dist: Belgaum. 3 Kumar, 5/0 Mallikarjun Jagajampi, Age: 8 years, Ccc: Student, Rio: Plot No 14, Sctor No.3, Shivabasav Nag:ar, Tal & Dist: Beigaum. :2: 4. Mr. Ajaykumar R,Pezthuiklkunnathil, Age: major, 0cc: Busin.ess, RIo: F4, B Wing, Lohis Residency, Manik Colony, Chindwadgaon, Pune411O33.. Respondents (By Sri. K,S,Patil, for Hegde Neeralagi & Patil, Adv,, for Ri3) (R4 — served> This misceflaneous first appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and award dated 21122O1O passed in MVC. No,1407/2009 on the file of the V Additiona’ District Judge and Sessions Judge, Belgaum, awarding the compensation of ‘7,14,000/ with interest at the rate of 6% pa. from the date of petition till reahsation. This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court delivered the following: JUDGMENT In this appeal, the appellant has called in question the judgment award dated 21 st December 2010 in MVC. No,1407/2009 passed by the District Judge, Belgaurn. 2. The main ground urged by the appellant is that the compensation awarded by the Tiibunai is on the higher side., :3: 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that they have produced Ex.R.2-salary certificate specifying that as on the date of the accident, the deceased was earning only Rs.3,5001- per month. On the other hand, respondents/claimants contend that the deceased was earning more than Rs.8,000I- per month. The Tribunal by considering the nature of job, the prospect in the job and the compulsions under which the deceased was working, has rightly taken the monthly income at Rs.6000I- per month. This conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is in accordance with law and I find no justifiable ground to interfere with the same. 4. Under conventional heads, Tribunal has awarded Rs.80,000/- This Court and Apex Court, in the normal circumstance, have been awarding maximum of Rs.30,000I- under the conventional heads. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the conventional heads is on higher side. The same is required to be reduced to Rs.30,000I- from Rs.80,000/-. To this extent the impugned award requires to be modified. 4. —. :4: 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that he will withdraw the cross objections filed by the respondents. The submission of the learned counsel is placed on record. 6. For the reasons stated above, the following order is passed: ORDER The appeal is allowed in part. The impugned award dated 21.12.2010 passed in M.V.C. No.1407/2009 is hereby modified reducing the compensation from Rs.7,14,000/- to Rs. 6,64,000/-. Remaining all other aspects, the award passed by the Tribunal remains intact and undisturbed. Amount in deposit be transferred to the Tribunal for disbursement in terms of the award. Sd! JUDGE Kms