JUDGMENT : This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the judgment and award dated 12.10.2007 passed in MVC No.4544/2006 by the IV Additional Judge and Member, MACT, Bangalore, wherein petition was allowed granting Rs.3,62,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till payment directing the respondents 1 and 2 pay the same jointly and severally seeking to set aside the same. 2. In order to avoid confusion and overlappings, parties are referred to with reference to their rankings as referred in the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of case are: that on 31.3.2006 at about 1.00 p.m. one Narayanaswamy was carrying hay stock over his head in a gunny bag at Vally Public School at Narasapura village and at that time, Mini bus bearing Registration No.KA.07/5511 came in high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him. Due to which, he fell down and sustained injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to SNR Hospital, Kolar for treatment. Thereafter, he was shifted to Victoria Hospital for further treatment, but he died on 6.4.2006. It is further stated that Narayanaswamy was aged about 45 years and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. Claimants have spent huge amount towards transportation of dead body, and to perform last rites. Therefore, compensation of Rs.10.00 lakh is claimed by his wife and two sons and two daughters. 4. Respondent No.1, owner of the offending vehicle remained absent and placed exparte. Insurance Company appeared and contested the matter and disputed the claim and its liability. 5. The learned Member considered the matter on the aspects of accident, negligence, injury, death, dependants and entitlement of compensation and on the basis of the oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2, RW1 and documentary evidence of Exs.P1 to P10 and Ex.R1 and 2, allowed the claim petition in part, granting the compensation as mentioned above, holding that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall pay the said amount jointly and severally. 6. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the Insurance Company has presented this appeal, seeking to set aside the same and to dismiss the claim petition holding that the vehicle is not involved in the accident. 7. Admitted aspects are: sustaining injury to the leg on 31.3.2006 by Narayanaswamy and his death on 6.4.2006 after a gap of 5 clear days. He died because of the injuries sustained which are fatal injuries. 8. 7. Admitted aspects are: sustaining injury to the leg on 31.3.2006 by Narayanaswamy and his death on 6.4.2006 after a gap of 5 clear days. He died because of the injuries sustained which are fatal injuries. 8. Learned counsel Sri. D. Vijaya Kumar, appearing for the Insurance Company would submit that the accident has not occurred as stated by the claimants. On the other hand, the accident is planted along with the vehicle and unfair advantage of the legislation is taken to claim compensation. It is also submitted that, connected criminal case and statement of the witnesses therein and acquittal of the same dislodges the claim, contention and the prayer of the claimants. Further, he submits that, liability is not on the Insurance Company as he successfully established that accident was not the result of the negligent driving and the death was not the result of the injuries. 9. Learned counsel Sri. Jagadish G. Kumbar, appearing for the claimants would submit that the Insurance Company is estopped from denying the happening of the accident as it has admitted the accident and, the aspect of negligence is to be adjudicated. He would further submit that accident was not disputed by the Insurance Company according to its written statement. 10. The said submission was contradicted by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company stating that a contextual denial is there in the written statement. It was also submitted that the acquittal of the accused in the connected criminal case is only from the charge of criminal law of causing death through negligence. Section 401A draws curtains to the claim for compensation. 11. In this Connection, a cursory glance of the circumstances of happening of the accident is necessary. The accident occurred near Vally Public School, Narasapura and at that time, Narayanaswamy was carrying bag full of hay stock. Accident is registered in FIR as per Ex.P1 and final report came to be filed and it was charge sheeted in CC No.560/2006. It was submitted that evidence and judgment have gone against the claimants and claim for compensation. In this connection, it is to be remembered that a criminal trial and the trial before the Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act are parallel proceedings and each does not have overriding power over the other. It was submitted that evidence and judgment have gone against the claimants and claim for compensation. In this connection, it is to be remembered that a criminal trial and the trial before the Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act are parallel proceedings and each does not have overriding power over the other. It is not necessary that in call cases of conviction in the criminal case, the claim petitions have to be rejected or in the case of conviction the claim petitions invariably has to be allowed. Considerations are different. Appreciation of evidence standards is different. 12. Further aspect is, not happening of the accident. FIR is registered under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. and final report is filed under Section 173(2) and cognizance is taken under Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. and the trial is said to have been completed and matter ended in an acquittal. The Insurance Company had ample opportunity to challenge cognizance of the criminal case if not registration of the case, which did not happened and it is not a form of authenticity of cognizance to be challenged. 13. Further limb of the arguments is, that there was no nexus between injury and death. Narayanaswamy against whom the dependency is claimed, was not able to walk as he requires supporting tick to walk and a person who walks with a support cannot carry the load on the head. Even if he walks so, his walking would be helter and skelter. This Court is not considered regarding which particular offence is being committed to maintain or to reduce or to declare it as a lesser offence. The parameters are, injuries, disability, result and loss of dependency. The documents that is available regarding the death is Post Mortem Report which is marked as Ex.P8. It is to be noted that, in Ex.P8, the cause of death is mentioned as “shock as a result of septicemia”. The fortifying effect of postmortem report is further strengthened by the note mentioned on the P.M. report, wherein, the history is mentioned as “Road Traffic accident dated 31.8.2006 at 1.00 p.m. near Narasapura village. The body was brought and identified by PC No.724 Jayapalaiah of Rural Police Station, Kolar.” 14. Thus, the relevant documents go against the contention of the Insurance Company. The body was brought and identified by PC No.724 Jayapalaiah of Rural Police Station, Kolar.” 14. Thus, the relevant documents go against the contention of the Insurance Company. The effect of septicemia is, infection of soft tissues and degree of infection increases and when once the entire soft tissues in the body gets infected there comes an end. The severe type of infection in which blood stream is infected by large number of bacteria. Thus, the range of period is not definite which all depend on the resisting capacity of each body. Regard being had to the fact that Narayanaswamy died on the 6th day of the accident. Thus, there is no occasion to interfere with the finding of the learned Member regarding death was due to the injuries caused in the accident. 15. Next face is regarding quantum of compensation. The learned Member considering monthly income of Narayanaswamy at Rs.3,000/-per month, annually at Rs.36,000/-, deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses and applying 13 multipleir, awarded Rs.3,12,000/-towards loss of dependency, Rs.10,000/-towards loss of consortium, Rs.30,000/-towards loss of love and affection, Rs.10,000/-towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses and in all Rs.3,62,000/-with interest at 6% p.a. 16. It is needless to observe that, learned counsel, for the Insurance Company would also submits that conduct of the claimants was not appreciable for the reason that the children of Narayanaswamy through his first wife were not joined for making claim and it was after questioning by the Insurance Company, they were impleaded and no matter, it was submitted that they are on record now. 17. In the context and circumstances of the case, insofar as the stable income in the rural side is concerned, the same is directly proportionate to the quantum. Thus, the fancy figure may not be suitable. Assumably and understandably, an income of lower side would be stable. This observation is made in view of consideration of the head future prospects as it is not considered by the learned Member and there is nko embargo on the part of the Court to consider the concept of future prospects under just compensation. Age of Narayanaswamy being 45 years, 25% is to be added towards future prospects. Thus, the monthly income ought to have been considered at Rs.3,000/- + 25% (750) = Rs.3,750/-. Age of Narayanaswamy being 45 years, 25% is to be added towards future prospects. Thus, the monthly income ought to have been considered at Rs.3,000/- + 25% (750) = Rs.3,750/-. Considering the number of members of the family, it is just and proper to deduct 1/4th towards personal and living expenses. Per annum, it comes to Rs.45,000/-. Out of which if 1/4th Rs.11,250/- is deducted, remaining amount comes to Rs.33,750/. If it is multiplied by 14, total loss of dependency comes to Rs.4,72,500/-. Claimants are entitled for Rs.70,000/- towards conventional heads. Thus, the claimants are entitled for the modified compensation as under: Loss of dependency Rs.4,72,500/- Add: Conventional heads: Rs. 70,000/- Rs.5,42,500/ Less: Awarded Rs.3,62,000/ Enhancement Rs.1,80,500/- 18. Thus, the errors committed by the learned member regarding unnoticing the aspect of future prospects, application of multiplier considering the age of the deceased are rectified. Thus, the structure of compensation as entitled by the claimants is modified as stated above. 19. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company would submit that no fresh injuries are noted in the MLC record. It is necessary to mention that, cause of death is septecimia of the injuries suffered by the deceased in the accident as per postmortem report. As no fresh injuries are established in the MLC report and only the old injuries are narrated. But in the PM report, the injuries are mentioned as under: “Infected wound present over upper third of the right leg measuring about 6” x 2”. Measurement are irregular, oozing of pub present, foul smelling; One old scar present over the lateral aspect of left thigh extending from upper thigh and thigh to knee; Old scar present over upper 2/3rd of the left upper arm.” 20. Thus, the submission of learned counsel for the Insurance Company has an answer within itself to disbelieve it. Thus, I do not find legal force in this submission. Regard being had to the fact that Insurance Company challenges the same by way of review petition and the learned Member on considering the materials before him rejected the same. 21. In the result, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company challenging the grant of compensation is dismissed. The fact remains that the compensation granted to the claimants stands enhanced byRs.1,80,500/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its payment. 21. In the result, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company challenging the grant of compensation is dismissed. The fact remains that the compensation granted to the claimants stands enhanced byRs.1,80,500/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its payment. Judgment and award dated 12.10.2007 passed in MVC No.4544/2006 by the IV Additional Judge and Member MACT, Bangalore (SCCH-6), is modified to the said extent. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount including the enhanced compensation with interest before the jurisdictional Tribunal within an outer limit of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.