on the ground that at the time of accident the deceased was a healthy person, aged about 32 years and engaged in agriculture, earning Rs.
On 04.10.2000 Appellant No.
Hospital, Ilkal, he died.
1, the wife of the deceased and Appellant No.
Consequently, the High Court set aside the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and directed the appellants herein to refund the amount of companypensation to the Insurance Company.
500/ .
When the said motor cycle was proceeding on Ilkal Kustagl, National Highway, a bullock cart proceeding ahead of the said motor cycle carrying iron sheet suddenly stopped and companysequently deceased Ramappa who was proceeding on the said motor cycle dashed against it.
4152/2005 before the High Court of Karnataka on the ground that the accident occurred due to the fault of the deceased and claim petition before the Tribunal was number maintainable as Section 163 A of the Act is number applicable unless there was another vehicle involved in the accident.
Consequent to the aforesaid incident, he sustained fatal injuries over his vital part of body and on the way to Govt.
40,000/ per annum.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the appellants filed a review petition bearing number 337/2007.
The High Court by its judgment and order dated 08.08.2007 allowed the appeal holding that the claim petition before the Tribunal was number maintainable as there was numbertort feasor involved.
The doctor of the general hospital, Ilkal companyducted post mortem examination over dead body of the deceased and gave his opinion that the death of the deceased was caused due to hemorrhage and shock due to the injury to his liver.
24236/2008 which is against the judgment and order dated 19.11.2007 passed in Review Petition No.
25497/2008 against the judgment and order dated 08.08.2007 passed in Miscellaneous First Appeal No.
Page 3 of 20 Aggrieved by the said decision, the Insurance Company preferred an appeal being Miscellaneous First Appeal No.
4152/2005 by the High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore and another bearing No.
21,600/ from which 1/3 was to be deducted leaving thereby Rs.
Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased was ascertained as Rs.
60/ per day as per the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act.
It is required to be stated at this stage that companypensation as determined by the Tribunal was paid and received by the legal representatives of the deceased, namely the widow and the minor son.
Since the age of the deceased was found to be in between 30 to 35 years, the relevant multiplier to be applied was 17.
from the respondent Insurance Company.
8,10,000/ along with future Page 2 of 20 interest etc.
On 09.09.2000, the deceased was traveling on Hero Honda Motor Cycle, which he borrowed from its real owner for going from Ilkal to his native place Gudur.
5,000/ per month and was the sole earning member in their family.
1,800/ and yearly income as Rs.
2,59,800/ along with interest at the rate of 8 p.a.
The aforesaid motor cycle in which the deceased was traveling at the time of accident was insured with the Insurance Company, namely, the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and the said motor cycle was owned by one Paranagouda.
896/2000 praying for companypensation of Rs.
14,400/ as the net income of the deceased.
The claimant number 1 and 2 are the wife and son respectively of the Page 1 of 20 deceased Ramappa.
Accordingly, the Tribunal under its award dated 09.02.2005 partly allowed the claim petition filed by the appellants holding that the said appellants are entitled to receive a total companypensation amount of Rs.
However the same was dismissed on 19.11.2007 by the High Court with companyts of Rs.
The other ground of challenge was that the Tribunal erred in allowing the claim petition when the total income of the deceased was stated to be more than Rs.
Page 4 of 20 Consequently, the appellants preferred two Special Leave Petitions, one bearing No.
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. Leave granted.
Since both these appeals arise out of the same set of facts and involve similar questions of law, we propose to dispose of both these appeals by this companymon judgment.
The Tribunal held that in absence of definite and companyent proof of income, the income of the deceased was to be companysidered as Rs.
40, 000/ per annum.
The Tribunal received evidence and tested the claim.
VI, Bijapur, Karnataka in short the Tribunal being M.V.C. No.
337/2007.
The present appeals arise out of a motor accident claim.
2 minor son of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 163 A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in short the MVA before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.
