Judgment :- These two appeals by the Insurer and the claimants are arising out of the same judgment and award dated 04/09/2004 passed in MVC No.2203/2002 on the file of the 18th Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and MACT-Iv, Bangalore (SCCH-4) (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ for short). 2. The Tribunal by its judgment and award, has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,85,000/- with interest a t6% p.a form the date of petition till the date of realization as against the claim made by the claimants for a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased Sri. Peddanna, in the road traffic accident. 3. In brief, the facts of the case are: The claimant No.1 is the wife, claimant Nos.2 and 3 are the minor children of the deceased Sri. Peddanna and they have filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation against the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, on account of the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident, contending that, on 15.4.2002, at about 10.30 pm., deceased was travelling in a Tata Sumo bearing No.KA.05.Z.3273 to go his house at Jigani and when it came near Vijaya Bank at Kempanayakanahalli on Bannerghatta road, the driver of the said vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over it and dashed against the Tractor which was parked by the side of the road, due to which, deceased sustained grievous injuries, Immediately, he was shifted to hospital and he died on 20.4.2002. It is the further case of the claimants that , deceased was aged about 32 years, doing business in the name and style M/s. Annapurneswari Enterprises and earning Rs. 35,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- per month and looking after the welfare of the family, due to his untimely death, they have suffered both socially and economically. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. 35,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- per month and looking after the welfare of the family, due to his untimely death, they have suffered both socially and economically. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in turn, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence and other material available on file, has recorded the finding of a fact that, deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident, the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurer as on the date of the accident and therefore, the Insurer is liable to indemnify the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and after assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month, deducting 1/3rd towards his personal and living expenses and adopting multiplier of ‘15’, has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,60,000/- towards loss of dependency and also awarded Rs. 25,000/- towards conventional heads and accordingly, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding the compensation of Rs. 3,85,000/- under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its deposit. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the Insurer has filed an appeal contending that, the liability fastened on the Insurer cannot be sustained and also that the quantum of compensation by the Tribunal is on higher side and it requires to be reduced and the claimants have filed an appeal contending that, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and it requires to be enhanced by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 4. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the Insurer and learned counsel appearing for claimants at considerable length of time. 5. 4. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the Insurer and learned counsel appearing for claimants at considerable length of time. 5. The learned counsel for the Insurer has taken a specific ground that, the Tribunal has erred in allowing the claim petition without taking into consideration the contents of the P.M. report, which shows that the death was caused due to septicemia and not due to the fracture of elbow and that the involvement of the offending vehicle in the alleged accident was not intimated or reported to the police immediately after the accident or case was not registered on the basis of the information given by the hospital where the deceased was taken for treatment and it proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the alleged accident involving the insured vehicle is only manipulation using the police machinery and therefore, it ought to have dismissed the claim petition in limini and looking from any angle, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is illegal and arbitrary and therefore, the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified. 6. As against this, learned counsel for the claimants, inter-allia contended that, the Tribunal after assessing the oral and documentary evidence has fixed the liability against the Insurer, which is just and proper and it does not call for interference. Further she submitted that, the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased a t Rs. 3,000/- per month for calculating loss of dependency and also that the compensation awarded towards conventional heads is inadequate and therefore, it requires to be enhanced by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 7. After careful consideration of the contentions urged by both the parties, after perusal of the materials available on file, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the points that arise for our consideration are: (i) Whether the death of the deceased was due to the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident.? (ii) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? Regarding Point No.1: 8. (ii) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? Regarding Point No.1: 8. it is the specific case of the Insurer that the Tribunal has committed an error of law in allowing the claim petition treating the death of the deceased was due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, without noticing the contents of P.M. Report which shows that the death was due to Septicemia and not due to the fracture of elbow and also without noticing the fact that the involvement of the vehicle has not been reported to the police immediately after the accident nor a case was registered on the basis of the information given by the hospital authorities and it clearly indicates that he alleged accident involving the insured vehicle is only a manipulation using the police machinery. In the light of the above contentions of the Insurer, we have gone through the evidence on record. It is crystal clear from Ex.P1- complaint given by the brother-in-law of the deceased that, the owner of the offending vehicle, Tata Sumo has promised that he would bare the medical expenses and see that her husband will be fully recovered, deceased was admitted in the hospital and all the medical facilities have been provided to him. Due to the assurance given by the owner of the offending vehicle which was insured with the Insurer, there is a delay in filing FIR and the same is bonafide and not intentional one. This fact has been rightly considered by the Tribunal and has recorded the finding of fact to that effect. Further, it is clear from Ex.P6- P.M. report that Doctor who has conducted autopsy has opined that the cause of the death of the deceased was due to septicemia and shock as a result of post operative infection (operation being conducted to correct fracture of left elbow, due to the injury sustained. Further, the opinion of the Doctor proves beyond reasonable doubt that septicemia was due to injury sustained by the deceased to his left elbow and this aspect of the matter has not been referred in the memorandum of appeal intentionally and deliberately. Further, the opinion of the Doctor proves beyond reasonable doubt that septicemia was due to injury sustained by the deceased to his left elbow and this aspect of the matter has not been referred in the memorandum of appeal intentionally and deliberately. Therefore, this specific ground taken by the Insurer cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside, after re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, holding that the deceased was died on account of the injury sustained by him in the road traffic accident. 9. Regarding point No.2: It emerges from the records that, deceased was aged about 32 years, doing business and the accident had occurred in the year 2002. Further it is the case of the PW1 that, deceased was a business man and getting the income of more than Rs. 35,000/- per month and looking after the welfare of the family. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased a t Rs. 3,000/- per month which is on lower side and it needs to be enhanced. Having regard to the age and occupation of the deceased and the year of the accident, we re-assess his income at Rs. 4,000/- per month. Out of which, if 1/3rd (Rs. 1,333/-) is deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, the net income comes to Rs. 2,667/- per month. The appropriate Multiplier applicable to the case in hand is ‘16’ instead of ‘15’ adopted by the Tribunal, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 . Therefore, we re-determine the loss of dependency at Rs. 5,12,064/- (Rs. 2,667/- x 12 x16) instead of Rs. 3,60,000/-awarded by the Tribunal and accordingly it is awarded. 10. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards conventional heads, the same is inadequate and it requires to be enhanced. Having regard to the facts and circumstance of the case, we award a sum Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of love and affection, rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of love and affection, rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified. In all the claimants are entitled for the total modified. In all the claimants are entitled for the total compensation Rs. 5,57,064/- and the break-up is as follows: Towards Loss of dependency Rs. 5,12,064/-Towards loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/-Towards loss of estate Rs. 10,000/-Towards loss of love and affection Rs. 15,000/-Towards funeral and transportation expenses RS. 10,000/-Total Rs. 5,57,064/- 12. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurer is dismissed as devoid of merits. The appeal filed by the claimants is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.2203/2002 is hereby modified, awarding compensation of Rs. 5,57,064/- instead of Rs. 3,85,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation comes to Rs. 1,72,064/-with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. The Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and award. Out of the enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,72,064/-, a sum of Rs. 50,000/-with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in any Nationalised or Scheduled Bank, in the name of each of the claimant Nos. 2 and 3, till they attain majority with liberty to the claimant No.1 to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically, for their welfare. The remaining sum of Rs. 72,064/-with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the claimant No.1, immediately, on deposit by the Insurer. The amount deposited by the Insurer shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal immediately. Office is directed to draw the award, accordingly.