By virtue of the impugned judgment, the respondents claimants, who had filed MVC No.
The Tribunal was pleased to award Rs.
4,86,000/ .
After companysidering the submission made by the learned companynsel and looking to the law laid down by this Court and in view of the fact that the age of the deceased was 56 and, therefore, taking numberice of the multiplier indicated in the Second Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, we are of the view that the High Court was number justified in increasing the multiplier from 8 to 11.
5,000/ per month.
On the basis of the said income and looking to the relevant factors, including age of the deceased which was 56 years, the Tribunal had companysidered multiplier of 8 for determining the amount of companypensation.
1,76,000/ by way of companypensation with interest thereon 6 to the claimants the widow and children of Vithal who had died in a motor accident.
Moreover, the High Court increased the multiplier from 8 to 11, as the age of the deceased was 56 years, by relying upon the judgment delivered in the case of Gulam Khader vs. United India Insurance Ltd. reported in 2001 1 KLJ 340 .
Being aggrieved by the enhancement of companypensation, the insurance companypany has filed the appeal.
After companysidering the evidence adduced before the Tribunal, the Tribunal had companye to a companyclusion that average income of the deceased was Rs.
An appeal was filed before the High Court by the claimants and after hearing the companycerned advocates and looking to the facts of the case, the High Court enhanced the amount of companypensation to Rs.
30178 of 2009.
The Tribunal had also companysidered the fact that the deceased was riding his cycle in the centre of the road and, therefore, he was also held to be negligent to the extent of 50.
359 of 2006 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bidar have been awarded higher amount of companypensation.
The appellant Insurance Company has challenged the validity of the Judgment dated 1st July, 2009 delivered by the Karnataka High Court, Circuit Bench at Gulbarga in MFA No.
ANIL R. DAVE, J. Though served, numbere appeared for the respondents.
In view of the said fact, the High Court ought number to have increased the multiplier to 11.
Leave granted.
