JUDGMENT : N.K. Sudhindrarao, J. These are the appeals directed against the judgments and awards passed by the learned Member of MACT, more fully mentioned below in Table A in respect of the road traffic accident dated 18-4-2008 at Gogga cross, where certain causalities resulted. 2. Claim petitions that are preferred before different Tribunals came to be disposed of and against which appeals came to be preferred by the Insurance Company for setting aside the same and by the claimants for grant of compensation. 3. The tabular representation of the appeal numbers and preferred by whom, connected claim petitions, date of disposal, name of the Tribunal/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, effect of the accident, result and the compensation amount awarded are as under:- MFA No. and preferred by whom and the relief MVC No. Date of Disposal and by whom Effect Result and Compensation amount 8121 of 2014 By claimants for awarding compensation 533 of 2009, 19-7-2014 MACT, Davanagere Death of Ujjappa alias Ujjanagoudru Petition rejected 7343 of 2013 By Insurance Company for setting aside 455 of 2009, 10-6-2013, MACT, Harihar Injuries to Srinivasa Partly allowed Granting Rs. 96,000/- 7344 of 2013 By Insurance Company for setting aside 456 of 2009, 10-6-2013 MACT, Harihar Injuries to Girish Partly allowed granting Rs. 19,000/- 7980 of 2014 By Claimants for awarding compensation 531 of 2009, 19-7-2014 MACT, Davanagere Death of Shwetha Rejected 8120 of 2014 By claimant for awarding compensation 115 of 2009, 19-7-2014 MACT, Davanagere Injuries to Reshma Rejected 8066 of 2014 By claimants for awarding compensation 532 of 2009, 19-7-2014 MACT, Davanagere Death of Hanumanthappa Rejected 1934 of 2014 by Claimants for enhancement 47 of 2010, 10-6-2013 MACT Harihar Death of Benakappa Partly allowed granting Rs. 2,22,833/- 7342 of 2013 By Insurance Company for setting aside. - - - 5022 of 2013 By Insurance Company for setting aside. 82 of 2012, 1-4-2013 MACT Sagar Death of Shadaksharaiah Partly allowed granting compensation of Rs. 3,45,500/- 9638 of 2012 By claimant for enhancement 751 of 2009, 7-7-2012 by PO FTC-I and Add I. MACT-II, Shimoga Injuries to Mahesha Partly allowed granting compensation of Rs. 2,56,500/- 11035 of 2012 by R1 to 3 for setting aside Liability 46 of 2009, 4-8-2012 Sr. CJ & MACT, Shikari pura Injuries to Rangappa Partly allowed granting compensation of Rs. 1,11,440/- 11789 of 2012 Insurance Company for setting aside Liability. 750 of 2009, 7-7-2012 PO FTC-I & Addl. 2,56,500/- 11035 of 2012 by R1 to 3 for setting aside Liability 46 of 2009, 4-8-2012 Sr. CJ & MACT, Shikari pura Injuries to Rangappa Partly allowed granting compensation of Rs. 1,11,440/- 11789 of 2012 Insurance Company for setting aside Liability. 750 of 2009, 7-7-2012 PO FTC-I & Addl. MACT-II, Shimoga Injuries to Channesha Partly allowed granting compensation of Rs. 10,000/- 11790 of 2012 By Insurance Company for setting aside Liability. 751 of 2009, 7-7-2012 By PO FTC-I & Addl. MACT-II, Shimoga Injuries to Mahesha Partly allowed granting compensation of Rs. 2,56,500/- 11787 of 2012 Insurance Company for setting aside Liability. 748 of 2009, 7-7-2012 By PO FTC-I & Addl. MACT-II, Shimoga Death of Karirangappa Partly allowed granting compensation of Rs. 2,97,837/- 11788 of 2012 Insurance Company for setting aside Liability. 749 of 2009, 7-7-2012 By PO FTC-I & Add 1 .M ACT-II, Shimoga Death of Kuberappa Partly allowed granting compensation of Rs. 2,17,836/- 11791 of 2012 Insurance Company for setting aside Liability. 752 of 2009, 7-7-2012 By PO FTC-1 & Addl. MACTTI, Shimoga Death of Hanumanthavva Partly allowed granting compensation of Rs. 1,32,000/- Out of 16 matters mentioned above, 7 are the cases of death and remaining are the cases of injuries. Tabular representation as mentioned above gives an account of the same. 4. The incident that caused the initiation of proceedings is, that on 18-4-2008 at about 7.15 P.M. the injured petitioners and few others (who are now no more) were traveling in a bus bearing Registration No. KA.14.A.0990 towards Shikaripura. After crossing Ballur Village there was heavy wind and rain and when they crossed Kaginele cross and came near Gogga cross, bus suddenly stopped. The driver and passengers of the said bus got down and saw that one big Baniyan tree fell on the bus and due to which bus was completely damaged. There were 45-50 passengers in the bus. The respective injured persons and the dependants of those who succumbed to the injuries have filed their respective claim petitions. The matters were adjudicated not by a common Tribunal, but by different Tribunals. Thus, uneven results are found. 5. The National Insurance Company Limited is common in all the cases and has issued the policy in respect of the bus bearing Registration No. KA.14.A.0990. 6. In respect of the appeals preferred by the Insurance Company, learned Counsel Sri. The matters were adjudicated not by a common Tribunal, but by different Tribunals. Thus, uneven results are found. 5. The National Insurance Company Limited is common in all the cases and has issued the policy in respect of the bus bearing Registration No. KA.14.A.0990. 6. In respect of the appeals preferred by the Insurance Company, learned Counsel Sri. O. Mahesh, would submit that Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation, as such, there cannot be any liability on it, as the accident did not occurred as a result of the negligence of the driver thereby to have percolating effect to the owner thereby to the Insurance Company. It all happened because of the aggravation by the nature, the Act of God or Vis Major. Thus, according to the learned Counsel, there was no designed or involvement of the Insurance Company or any human being, as such, fastening of liability on the Insurance Company was out of question and the learned Members erred in saddling liability on the Insurance Company. It was also further submitted by the learned Counsel that the State Government is the custodian and owner of all the natural resources including forest area, road and whenever any sad or bad incident happens because of its lapse or negligence on the part of the Government leading to misshapen it would be a tortious liability on the State Government. Thus, invariably, learned Members ought to have saddled liability on the Government. 7. Learned Counsel's further submission is that, a case was registered under Section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for unnatural death and there is no way to connect the accident to the negligence of the bus driver, which is said to be owned by one Sri. Harish Kumar Shetty. 8. Insofar as the claims of petitioners where petitions came to be dismissed, Smt. Vijaya M.N. and Sri. V.B. Siddaramaiah, learned Counsel for claimants would submit that taking ground of Vis Major and seeking exclusion from liability is a myth or fiction as the accident did happened because of the negligence of the bus driver and hence, the question of saddling liability on the Government does not arises. They also seek for compensation. 9. The Government is the appellants in MFA No. 11035 of 2012 and the learned Government Advocate is not available to submit. They also seek for compensation. 9. The Government is the appellants in MFA No. 11035 of 2012 and the learned Government Advocate is not available to submit. As the matters are interconnected to each other insofar as point of facts and point of law, it is taken up for disposal. 10. The main contention raised by the learned Counsel Sri. O. Mahesh is that the Insurance Company never becomes liable to pay compensation for the very reason the accident occurred because of excess of nature. 11. In this connection, it is necessary to mention Section 124 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 which deals with the Contract of Indemnity wherein indemnifier undertakes to make good the loss sustained by the indemnified whether it is occasioned due to the default of the promissory or any other person, but the loss would be made good by the promisor. Section 124 of Indian Contract Act reads as under: "124. "Contract of indemnity" defined. - A contract by which one party promises to save the other from loss caused to him by the conduct of the promisor himself, or by the conduct of any other person, is called a "contract of indemnity"." 12. Insofar as negligence is concerned, it is the stand of learned Counsel for Insurance Company that driver of the bus was never negligent. The learned Member in a judgment has mentioned the manner of the accident as a moving bus abruptly stopped, the driver and some passengers came out and saw that a huge tree had fallen on the bus. But as could be seen from the complaint, it is stated that when the bus was passing near the Banyan tree at about 7.15 p.m., there was huge sound and the bus stopped. The passengers started screaming and the complainant driver and passengers came down and saw the back half portion of the bus had suffered a fall of tree on its top. 13. There were about 45-50 passengers and some received serious injuries. A criminal case came to be registered under Sections 130 and 174 as UDR No. 6 of 2008. Suffice to observe that Section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 relates to report of unnatural death. It was in this connection, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company contended that when it is unnatural death, there is no question of negligence. 14. A criminal case came to be registered under Sections 130 and 174 as UDR No. 6 of 2008. Suffice to observe that Section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 relates to report of unnatural death. It was in this connection, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company contended that when it is unnatural death, there is no question of negligence. 14. Under Section 174 what has to be reported is when the death does not occurred in its natural way and on the other hand, when it was made to happen by unnatural means like suicide and related, the report of unnatural deaths are made. It was also stated that it was a rainy day, coupled with wind and big tree could not sustain the pressure and force from the top and collapsed. Even if the manner of describing the accident by the driver is, when such a huge tree fell on the backside, according to the complainant, driver and passengers came to know only after getting down to see tree had fallen down. The element of negligence does not have a self definition to apply in all the cases. On the other hand, the degree of care and caution to be taken differs from one circumstance to the other. In case, bus was blown due to rain or wind and huge tree about to fall and the complainant driver telling that after hearing the sound he along with other passengers came down and saw that a big tree had fallen on the bus. Thus, the driver is very ideal to say that he did not experience any fall on the back. On the other hand, such a gigantic tree falls on the bus, petitioners hears only the sound and when driver get down from the bus along with the passengers he saw the tree. 15. In all the circumstances, minimum prudence is sufficient. In the existing circumstances, the driver if he was whishal and careful considering the rain and wind skiddy road, he would have averted the accident. Thus, in the circumstances, his version as to stating that he heard big voice "Dhag", he came out that means to say that inference that he did not see the tree falling and that he passed away then it fell. His version that he saw the bus only after the sound and when he came out tree had fallen. Thus, in the circumstances, his version as to stating that he heard big voice "Dhag", he came out that means to say that inference that he did not see the tree falling and that he passed away then it fell. His version that he saw the bus only after the sound and when he came out tree had fallen. Thus, he did not see the tree falling till he passed ahead and it fell only when the second half of the bus was under the tree, the real jolt. Thus, at any stretch of imagination, be it objective or subjective, the driver would have averted the accident if he was careful to a minimum extent though not of extraordinary care. Thus, without further inference it can be concluded that the result of negligence was the injuries to some and death of victims. 16. In the circumstances, the police considered the matter and ended in registering a case in Crime No. 6 of 2008 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. The Police Sub-Inspector or the Police Officers concerned in his wisdom felt that investigation was not necessary it is not that it may not be concluded for a while that in order to consider the act of negligence, it is only the police people who have obtained and once they have not taken action no review is called. 17. In the circumstances, except the accident the other aspects like policy, licence and the related facts are not disputed, but it is only the negligence on the part of driver of the bus. When the vehicle is insured, the policy was in force and there are no other grounds urged, except negligence, invariably, the liability squarely falls on the owner and compensation has to be made good by the Insurance Company. 18. The submission regarding Vis Major by the Counsel for Insurance Company does not hold legal efficacy. At the same time, holding the Forest Department is liable to make good compensation as the tree existed in the forest area is also not proper. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the claimants to set aside the judgment or finding of exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability is worth to be considered. 19. At the same time, holding the Forest Department is liable to make good compensation as the tree existed in the forest area is also not proper. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the claimants to set aside the judgment or finding of exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability is worth to be considered. 19. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company would submit that, some petitions were originally preferred under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and thereafter, it came to be converted into the petition under Section 163-A of M.V. Act, despite the income declared as admitted by the respective claimants was more and it was zipdriven to suit the figure of Rs. 40,000/- per annum. Thus, the learned Counsel would submit that the claimants cannot approbate and reprobate in making the petition and abridging it to one which suits. 20. Necessary aspect here is, no doubt for moving an application under Section 163-A of M.V. Act, optimum limit of annual income must be inferred not more than Rs. 40,000/- per annum. A moot question would be, whether the notional income for the purpose of claim petition could be declared below the optimum level of Rs. 40,000/- p.a. In other words, whether a claim under Section 163-A of the Act is tenable where the income of the victims was/is more than Rs. 40,000/- per annum. The claim petitions under Section 163-A is not tenable if made by a person whose income exceeds Rs. 40,000/- per annum. But, in case, the person with higher income intentionally brings down his income to Rs. 40,000/- in order to present his claim under Section 163-A the same can be permitted. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the claimants to set aside the judgment or finding of exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability is worth to be considered. 21. In this connection, I am supported by a Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Guruanna Vadi and Another v. The General Manager, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore and Another AIR 2001 Kant. 275 (FB) : ILR 2001 Kar. 2879 (FB), wherein their lordships have considered this Question and answered in the affirmative. The relevant Question and Answer are as under: "Question No. 4: Whether a claim under Section 163-A of the Act is tenable where the income of the victim was/is more than Rs. 275 (FB) : ILR 2001 Kar. 2879 (FB), wherein their lordships have considered this Question and answered in the affirmative. The relevant Question and Answer are as under: "Question No. 4: Whether a claim under Section 163-A of the Act is tenable where the income of the victim was/is more than Rs. 40,000/-per annum and where the actual medical expenses incurred is Rs. 15,000/-? Answer to Question No. 4: A claim application under Section 163-A is not tenable if made by a person whose income exceeds Rs. 40,000 per annum. But, in case the person with the higher income notionally brings down his income to Rs. 40,000/- in order to present his claim under Section 163-A the same can be permitted." In this regard, Para No. 33 reads as under: 'Question No. 4: The Legislature intended to extend the benefit of this provision to a chosen class of person. The intention to limit it to a certain class is exemplified in the schedule appended to the statute. The schedule forms part of the statute and it often gives the details and forms for working out the policy underlying the statute. The division of a statute into section and Schedules is a mere matter of convenience and the Schedule, therefore, has to be treated as a substantive enactment which, sometimes, may even go beyond the scope of a section to which the schedule is appended. The Second Schedule limits the operation of the Section to a limited class of persons whose income is Rs. 40,000/- under the Schedule does not take away the right of the person to claim compensation under any other provision of the Act. The Legislature in its wisdom has thought it fit to provide the luxury of choice to persons whose income does not exceed Rs. 40,000/- in order to obviate the need for such persons to involve themselves in a long drawn litigation, the cost and consequences of which may work to their disadvantage and ultimate failure of justice. Such a beneficial provision which is more in the nature of advancement of social justice, keeping in view a select class of citizens, cannot be construed by Courts as applicable to all class of citizen. But, in case the person with the higher income notionally brings down his income Rs. 40,000/- in order to present his claim under Section 163-A the same can be permitted.' 22. But, in case the person with the higher income notionally brings down his income Rs. 40,000/- in order to present his claim under Section 163-A the same can be permitted.' 22. In view of the above discussions, I hold that in all these appeals, Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants. Insofar as quantum of compensation in all these cases are concerned: 23. MFA No. 8121 of 2014 is connected to MVC No. 533 of 2009. Learned Member has rejected the claim petition holding the policy has not covered Insurance for natural calamities and accident happened because of natural calamity. It is the contention of the appellants that the said finding is to be set aside holding that the claimants are entitled to compensation and that the owner of the bus and the Insurance Company are liable to pay compensation. 24. In this case, victim was one Ujjappa alias Ujjanagoudru and claim petition is under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act. 25. It is stated that Ujjappa was aged about 46 years, working in Birla Polyfibres Factory in spinning department and getting Rs. 14,800/- per month and petitioners are his wife and son and they are depending upon him. The optimum limit of income is considered at Rs. 3,300/- per month 1/3rd has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses and proper multiplier applicable is 13. Thus, the loss of dependency would be: Rs. 3,300/- x 2/3 x 12 x 13 = 3,43,200/- and Rs. 4,500/- towards conventional heads. In all Rs. 3,47,700/- with interest. The compensation amount shall be apportioned between the claimants in equal proportion. 26. MFA No. 7343 of 2013 filed by the Insurance Company is connected to MVC No. 455 of 2009. In this case, petitioner sustained injuries to spine quadraplesea. Doctor assessed disability at 25% and Tribunal taken at 10%. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 96,000/-. Considering the nature of injuries and percentage of disability, said compensation is considered as global compensation at Rs. 1.00 lac. Thus, there shall be an enhancement of Rs. 4,000/-. 27. MFA No. 7344 of 2013 filed by the Insurance Company is connected to MVC No. 456 of 2009. In this case, petitioner sustained four simple injuries and fracture of middle 3rd of metacarpal bone of index finger. He has not produced any disability certificate. 28. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 19,000/-. 4,000/-. 27. MFA No. 7344 of 2013 filed by the Insurance Company is connected to MVC No. 456 of 2009. In this case, petitioner sustained four simple injuries and fracture of middle 3rd of metacarpal bone of index finger. He has not produced any disability certificate. 28. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 19,000/-. Considering the nature of injuries and percentage of disability, said compensation is considered as global compensation at Rs. 25,000/-. Thus, there shall be an enhancement of Rs. 6,000/-. 29. MFA No. 7980 of 2014 connected to MVC No. 531 of 2009 is concerned, victim was one Shwetha and claim petition is under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act. Learned Member has rejected the claim petition holding the policy has not covered Insurance for natural calamities and accident happened because of natural calamity. Hence, the said finding is set aside holding that claimants are entitled for the compensation and the owner of the bus and the Insurance Company are liable to pay compensation. 30. In this case, deceased Shwetha was the wife of 1st claimant and mother of 2nd claimant. She was aged about 23 years and doing tailoring work and also working as beauty technician. The optimum limit of income is considered at Rs. 3,300/- per month. 1/3rd has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses and proper multiplier applicable is 18. Thus, the loss of dependency would be: Rs. 3,300/- x 2/3 x 12 x 18 = 4,75,200/- and Rs. 9,000/- towards conventional heads. In all, claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 4,84,200/- with interest. The same shall be apportioned equally between the claimants. 31. MFA No. 8120 of 2014 filed by the injured claimant-Reshma is connected to MVC No. 115 of 2009. Learned Member has rejected the claim petition holding the policy has not covered Insurance for natural calamities and accident happened because of natural calamity. Hence, the said finding is set aside holding that the claimant is entitled for compensation and owner of the bus and the Insurance Company are liable to pay compensation. 32. In this case, petitioner Reshma is aged about 19 years, studying and also doing tailoring work. Hence, the said finding is set aside holding that the claimant is entitled for compensation and owner of the bus and the Insurance Company are liable to pay compensation. 32. In this case, petitioner Reshma is aged about 19 years, studying and also doing tailoring work. She sustained 3 x 10 cm sized laceration, skull deep over left side of forehead, 4x5 cm laceration over the medial aspect of the forehead, 3 x 2 sized wound over the left iliac region of back, dent alveolar fracture, fracture right tibia and fibula. Doctor has assessed disability at 35 to 40% to right lower limb. 33. In the context and circumstances of the case, instead of dissecting the compensation under various heads i.e. instead of going for calculation of loss of future income, it is just and proper to quantify the global compensation at Rs. 2.00 lac with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation. 34. MFA No. 8066 of 2014 is connected to MVC No. 532 of 2009. Claim petition is filed under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, on account of death of Hanumanthappa. Initially, it was presented for compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by him and in the course of pendency of the claim petition, but he succumbed to the injuries on 17-4-2011. His claim petition was not considered by the learned Member and rejected the same. 35. It is stated that, deceased was aged about 25 years, at the time of death working as agriculturist and earning Rs. 200/- per day and claimants are the parents. As the petition is filed under Section 163-A of the Act, the notional income is considered at Rs. 3,300/-. Out of which, if 1/3rd (Rs. 1,100/-) is deducted, his remaining monthly income comes to Rs. 2,200/-. Appropriate multiplier would be 18. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 4,75,200/- (Rs. 2,200/- x 12 x 18). The claimants are also entitled for a sum of Rs. 4,500/- towards conventional heads. Thus, the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs. 4,79,700/-. The same shall be apportioned between the claimants in equal proportion. 36. MFA No. 1934 of 2014 and MI A No. 7342 of 2013 are connected to MVC No. 47 of 2010. The claimants are also entitled for a sum of Rs. 4,500/- towards conventional heads. Thus, the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs. 4,79,700/-. The same shall be apportioned between the claimants in equal proportion. 36. MFA No. 1934 of 2014 and MI A No. 7342 of 2013 are connected to MVC No. 47 of 2010. Claim petition is filed under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, on account of death of Benakappa who died leaving behind his wife and daughter. The learned Member has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,22,833/-, taking Rs. 40,000/- per annum as he was doing agriculture, after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses and applying 8 multiplier and Rs. 9,500/- towards conventional heads. 37. In this case, deceased was aged about 60 years and proper multiplier applicable is 9'. As the petition is filed under Section 163-A of the Act, notional income is considered at Rs. 3,300/-. Out of which, if 1/3rd (Rs. 1,100/-) is deducted, remaining monthly income comes to Rs. 2,200/-. Appropriate multiplier would be 9. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 2,37,600/- (Rs. 2,200/- x 12 x 9). Claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 9,000/- towards conventional heads. Thus, claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs. 2,46,600/-. The enhancement would be Rs. 23,767/- (Rs. 2,46,600-2,22,833). 38. In view allowing of MFA No. 1934 of 2014 filed by the claimants enhancing the compensation, MFA No. 7342 of 2013 filed by the Insurance Company is rejected. 39. MFA No. 5022 of 2013 is connected to MVC No. 82 of 2012. Claim petition is filed under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, on account of death of Shadaksharaiah. The learned Member has awarded compensation of Rs. 3,45,500/- fastening liability on the Insurance Company. Against which, Insurance Company has presented this appeal. 40. In this case, deceased was aged about 44 years, agriculturist by profession. As the petition is filed under Section 163-A of the Act, the notional income is considered at Rs. 3,300/-. Out of which, if 1/3rd (Rs. 1,100/-) is deducted towards personal and living expenses, remaining monthly income comes to Rs. 2,200/-. Appropriate multiplier would be 14. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 3,69,600/- (Rs. 2,200/- x 12 x 14). The claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 9,000/- towards conventional heads. Thus, the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs. 1,100/-) is deducted towards personal and living expenses, remaining monthly income comes to Rs. 2,200/-. Appropriate multiplier would be 14. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 3,69,600/- (Rs. 2,200/- x 12 x 14). The claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 9,000/- towards conventional heads. Thus, the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs. 3,78,600/- instead of Rs. 3,45,500/-. There shall be an enhancement of Rs. 24,100/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation. The appeal filed by the Insurance Company is rejected awarding additional compensation of Rs. 24,100/- with interest. 41. MFA No. 9638 of 2012 filed by the injured claimant for enhancement of compensation is connected to MVC No. 751 of 2009. Claim petition is filed under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act. In the accident he sustained two grievous injuries and one simple injury and suffered permanent disability at 25%. The learned Member has awarded compensation of Rs. 2,56,500/-together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation. Considering the nature of injuries and percentage of disability, compensation awarded by the learned Member is held to be just and sufficient and it is treated as global compensation. Hence, the appeal filed by the claimant is rejected. 42. MFA No. 11035 of 2012 preferred by the appellants/respondents 1 to 3 who are the State Authorities is connected to MVC No. 46 of 2009. The said claim petition is filed by the injured claimant under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act. The learned Member has allowed the claim petition in part granting compensation of Rs. 1,11,440/- fastening liability on the appellants to indemnify the same and dismissing the claim against R1 to 3. 43. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants is absent. It is the contention of the appellants that liability fastened on them is bad in law and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 44. In view of the reasons assigned above holding that the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the award amount in all these cases, the contention of the appellants that they are not liable to pay the same is accepted and liability fastened on the appellants is set aside saddling the same on the Insurance Company. 45. 44. In view of the reasons assigned above holding that the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the award amount in all these cases, the contention of the appellants that they are not liable to pay the same is accepted and liability fastened on the appellants is set aside saddling the same on the Insurance Company. 45. Sofar as compensation is concerned, the amount awarded by the learned Member is just and reasonable and it is maintained. The amount deposited by the appellants shall be refunded to them on proper identification. 46. MFA No. 11789 of 2012 is connected to MVC No. 750 of 2009. The learned Member has granted the compensation of Rs. 10,000/- with interest on account of the injuries sustained by the claimant, fastening liability on the Insurance Company. Insurance Company has preferred this appeal against fastening of liability on it. 47. In the context and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of injuries suffered, the compensation awarded is just and reasonable and deserves to be maintained. As already the liability is fastened on the Insurance Company, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is dismissed confirming the judgment and award passed by the learned Member. 48. MFA No. 11790 of 2012 preferred by the Insurance Company is connected to MVC No. 751 of 2009. The learned Member has granted the compensation of Rs. 2,56,500/- on account of the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident, fastening liability on the Insurance Company. Against which this appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company. 49. The compensation awarded by the learned Member is confirmed treating it as global compensation in the appeal filed by the claimant. Insofar as liability is concerned and in view of fastening liability on the Insurance Company as stated above, I do not find any error or irregularity or infirmity in the judgment and award passed by the learned Member. Hence, this appeal is dismissed confirming the liability fastened on the Insurance Company by the learned Member. 50. MFA No. 11787 of 2012 filed by the Insurance Company is connected to MVC No. 748 of 2009. It is in respect of death of Karirangappa. The claimants are his dependants. The learned Member has awarded compensation of Rs. 2,97,837/- fastening liability on the Insurance Company and against which, Insurance Company has presented this appeal. 51. 50. MFA No. 11787 of 2012 filed by the Insurance Company is connected to MVC No. 748 of 2009. It is in respect of death of Karirangappa. The claimants are his dependants. The learned Member has awarded compensation of Rs. 2,97,837/- fastening liability on the Insurance Company and against which, Insurance Company has presented this appeal. 51. In this case, deceased was aged about 50 years, Forest guard by profession. As the petition is filed under Section 163-A of the Act, the claimants have restricted his income to Rs. 40,000/-. Considering his age and occupation, notional income is considered at Rs. 3,300/- per month. Out of which, if 1/3rd (Rs. 1,100/-) is deducted towards personal and living expenses, remaining monthly income comes to Rs. 2,200/-. Appropriate multiplier would be 13. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 3,43,200/- (Rs. 2,200/- x 12 x 13). The claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 9,000/- towards conventional heads. Thus, the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs. 3,52,200/- instead of Rs. 2,97,837/-. There shall be an enhancement of Rs. 45,363/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation. 52. Insofar as liability is concerned, in view of fastening liability on the Insurance Company as stated above, I do not find any error or irregularity or infirmity in the judgment and award passed by the learned Member. Hence, this appeal is dismissed confirming the liability fastened on it by the learned Member. 53. MFA No. 11788 of 2012 connected to MVC No. 749 of 2009. It is in respect of death of Kuberappa. The claimants are his dependants. The learned Member has awarded compensation of Rs. 2,17,836/- fastening liability on the Insurance Company. Against which, Insurance Company has presented this appeal. 54. Considering his age and occupation, notional income is considered at Rs. 40,000/- per annum, deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses, applying multiplier 8, has awarded the loss of dependency at Rs. 2,13,336/- and also awarded Rs. 4,500/- towards conventional heads and in all Rs. 2,17,836/-. The compensation awarded by the learned Member is just and proper and it does not call for interference. 55. Insofar as liability is concerned, in view of fastening liability on the Insurance Company as stated above, I do not find any error or irregularity or infirmity in the judgment and award passed by the learned Member. 2,17,836/-. The compensation awarded by the learned Member is just and proper and it does not call for interference. 55. Insofar as liability is concerned, in view of fastening liability on the Insurance Company as stated above, I do not find any error or irregularity or infirmity in the judgment and award passed by the learned Member. Hence, this appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment and award passed by the learned Member. 56. MFA No. 11791 of 2012 is connected to MVC No. 752 of 2009. It is in respect of death of Hanumanthavva. The claimants are her dependants. The learned Member has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,32,000/- fastening liability on the Insurance Company. Against which, Insurance Company has presented this appeal. 57. In this case, deceased was aged about 46 years and agriculturist by profession. Considering the age and occupation, notional income is considered at Rs. 3,300/- per month. Out of which, if 1/3rd (Rs. 1,100/-) is deducted towards personal and living expenses, remaining monthly income comes to Rs. 2,200/-. Appropriate multiplier would be 13. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 2,18,400/- (Rs. 2,100/- x 12 x 13). Thus, the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs. 86,400/- (Rs. 2,18,400/- - Rs. 1,32,000/-) with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation. 58. Insofar as liability is concerned, in view of fastening of liability on the Insurance Company as stated above, I do not find any error or irregularity or infirmity in the judgment and award passed by the learned Member. Hence, this appeal is dismissed confirming the liability fastened on it by the learned Member. 59. For the foregoing reasons, the appeals filed by the Insurance Company are dismissed, appeals filed by the claimants are allowed in part and the appeal filed by the Government is allowed. Accordingly, the judgments and awards passed by the respective Tribunals in claim petitions are modified as stated below:- MFA Nos. Result Compensation awarded/enhancement 8121 of 2014 Partly allowed Rs. 3,47,700/- 7343 of 2013 Partly allowed Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. 4,000/-) 7344 of 2013 Partly allowed Rs. 25,000/- (enhancement Rs. 6,000/-) 7980 of 2014 Partly allowed Rs. 4,84,200/- 8120 of 2014 Partly allowed Rs. 2.00,000/- 8066 of 2014 Partly allowed Rs. 4,79,700/- 1934 of 2014 Partly allowed Rs. 2,46,600/- (Enhancement Rs. 23,767/-) 7342 of 2013 Rejected - 5022 of 2013 Partly allowed Rs. 3,78,600/- (enhancement Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. 4,000/-) 7344 of 2013 Partly allowed Rs. 25,000/- (enhancement Rs. 6,000/-) 7980 of 2014 Partly allowed Rs. 4,84,200/- 8120 of 2014 Partly allowed Rs. 2.00,000/- 8066 of 2014 Partly allowed Rs. 4,79,700/- 1934 of 2014 Partly allowed Rs. 2,46,600/- (Enhancement Rs. 23,767/-) 7342 of 2013 Rejected - 5022 of 2013 Partly allowed Rs. 3,78,600/- (enhancement Rs. 33,100/-) 9638 of 2012 Rejected - 11035 of 2012 Allowed holding that Insurance Company is liable - 11789 of 2012 Rejected - 11790 of 2012 Rejected - 11787 of 2012 Rejected Rs. 3,52,200/- awarded (Enhancement Rs. 45,363) 11788 of 2012 Rejected Confirming the award 11791 of 2012 Partly allowed Rs. 2,18,400/- (Enhancement of Rs. 86,400/-) In MFA No. 8121 of 2014, petitioners/claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs. 3,47,700/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation. Out of the compensation awarded, the petitioners are entitled for 50% each with interest. Out of the share of petitioners, 20% with proportionate interest shall be deposited as Fixed Deposit in their names in any Nationalised or Scheduled Bank for a period of 3 years and remaining 30% with proportionate interest shall be released to them. In MFA No. 7980 of 2014, petitioners/claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs. 4,84,200/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation. Out of the compensation awarded, the petitioners are entitled for 50% each with interest. Out of the share of petitioners, 20% with proportionate interest shall be deposited as Fixed Deposit in the name of the 1st claimant in any Nationalised or Scheduled Bank for a period of 3 years and remaining 30% with proportionate interest shall be released to him. Out of share of 50% of the compensation awarded to the claimant 2-minor daughter, 20% of the same with proportionate interest shall be deposited in her name in any Nationalised bank till she attains majority with liberty to the claimant 1 to withdraw the interest accrued on it for her welfare. In MFA No. 8066 of 2014, petitioners/claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs. 4,79,700/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation. Out of the compensation awarded, the petitioners are entitled for 50% each with interest. In MFA No. 8066 of 2014, petitioners/claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs. 4,79,700/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation. Out of the compensation awarded, the petitioners are entitled for 50% each with interest. Out of the share of petitioners, 20% with proportionate interest shall be deposited as Fixed Deposit in their names in any Nationalised or Scheduled Bank for a period of 3 years and remaining 30% with proportionate interest shall be released to them. In all these appeals liability is fastened on the Insurance Company. In all these appeals, the Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount including the enhanced compensation as mentioned above before the jurisdictional Tribunal within an outer limit of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The amount deposited in the appeals filed by the Insurance Company shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunals, forthwith. The amount deposited by the appellants in MFA No. 11035 of 2012 shall be refunded to the appellants on proper identification.