JUDGMENT : P.G.M. Patil, J. The insurer and the claimants being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 31.12.2008, passed in MVC No.1737/2005, by the Civil Judge Senior Division and Addl. MACT, Athani, have filed this appeal and Cross Objection. 2. It is the case of the claimants before the tribunal that, on 14.10.2004, at about 11.45 p.m. the deceased Dilip Dige attended the dinner with one Vijay Tukaram Garad at hotel Brindawan on Yedsi to Barsi road and after completion of dinner, the deceased and his companion were returning towards Pangari village. In the meanwhile, one white colour Luxury Bus came from Yedsi side which was proceeding towards Barsi, in a high speed and dashed to the deceased Dilip and fled away from the spot. The companion of the deceased by name Vijay Tukaram Gerad chased the bus on motorcycle and identified its number as MH-03- 2566. The deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. 3. The claimants have stated that prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy, aged about 44 years and was serving in the Police Department as Constable, and drawing a monthly salary of Rs.9,000/- and maintaining the whole family. Due to his sudden death, the petitioners have lost the earning member of the family. Claimants are the wife, son, daughter and old aged mother of the deceased who were fully depending upon him. The accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the said bus. Therefore, they claimed compensation of Rs.23,50,000/- against the owner and insurer of the offending bus. 4. In pursuance of the notices, respondent No.1 remained absent and he was placed exparte. Respondent No.2 appeared before the tribunal through his counsel and filed the written statement denying that the deceased Dilip was aged about 44 years and was working in Police Department and was drawing a salary of Rs.9,000/-p.m.. The allegations made in para Nos.4, 6, 8 and 9 are not admitted. He has denied that on 14/10/2005, the deceased Dilip along with his companions were returning towards Pangari village and in the meanwhile, one white colour Luxury Bus came in a high speed and dashed to the deceased and Vijay Tukaram Garad chased the bus on motorcycle and identified its number. He has also further denied that the said bus was insured with the respondent. He has also further denied that the said bus was insured with the respondent. He has further contended that the driver of the bus was not having valid and proper driving licence on the date of accident. Therefore, he is not liable to pay any compensation. He has also contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the deceased himself. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the tribunal framed issues. In support of their claim petition, claimant No.1 got examined herself as PW.1 and examined one witness and got marked in all 10 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.10. Respondent No.2 has produced copy of the Insurance policy as Ex.R1. However, no oral evidence was adduced. 6. The learned member of the tribunal after hearing both the parties, passed the impugned judgment, awarding a compensation of Rs.7,05,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 7. The insurer being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, has filed MFA No.21329/2009 on the grounds that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the contention of the appellant that there was no accident and the vehicle was not involved in the alleged accident and the respondents have filed false petition. The case of the claimants is not proved by the examination of PW-2 who has not given statement before the police regarding the manner in which the accident occurred. The claimants ought to have examined the alleged eye witnesses Vijay Tukaram Garad to prove the involvement of the vehicle. Therefore, the liability saddled against the Insurance Company is liable to be set aside. 8. The claimants being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award have filed MFA Crob.No.797/2009 seeking enhancement of the compensation on the ground that the Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased at Rs.6,587/- instead of salary of Rs.9,000/- p.m. and that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards future prospects. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 10. A short question which arises for consideration before this Court is as to "whether the appellant-insurer has made out grounds to set aside the liability saddled against him and whether the claimants have made out a ground for enhancement of the compensation?' 11. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 10. A short question which arises for consideration before this Court is as to "whether the appellant-insurer has made out grounds to set aside the liability saddled against him and whether the claimants have made out a ground for enhancement of the compensation?' 11. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer vehemently submitted that the claimants have not proved that the deceased sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident involving the Luxury bus bearing registration No.MH-03- 2566 and that the complainant and the alleged eye witnesses Vijay Tukaram Garad was not examined by the claimants in order to prove the involvement of vehicle in the accident and that the evidence of PW-2 is contrary to the case of the claimants and allegations made in the complainant by Vijay Tukaram Garad. Therefore, involvement of the said vehicle in the accident is not proved and as such the impugned judgment fastening the liability against the insurer is liable to be set aside. 12. Per contra, the learned counsel for claimants submitted that the insurer has not produced any evidence in order to prove his contention. The insurer has not challenged the FIR and charge sheet filed against the driver of the offending bus and that the evidence of PW-2 cannot be rejected in the absence of evidence of the driver of the offending bus. Therefore, on the basis of the police records and the evidence of PW-2, claimants have been able to prove the involvement of the offending bus in the accident and that the deceased sustained fatal injuries in the said accident and died on the spot. 13. As per the complaint-Ex.P1, the informant Vijay Tukaram Garad has stated before the complainant-PSI, Pangari police station that the bus bearing registration No.MH- 03-2566 dashed against the deceased and fled away from the spot and he chased the said bus on his motorcycle and observed its number and also that on the backside glass, sticker of photo of God Shankar and Parvath was found on the said bus and that the said bus was not stopped. Therefore, on the basis of his statement a case was registered against the driver of the said bus. However, PW-2, the witness examined by the claimants is also stated to be eye witness to the accident. Therefore, on the basis of his statement a case was registered against the driver of the said bus. However, PW-2, the witness examined by the claimants is also stated to be eye witness to the accident. In chief-examination he has stated that the bus dashed against the deceased and fled away from the spot and Vijay Tukaram Garad chased the said bus on his motorcycle and he identified the bus number. However, in the cross examination, he has stated that some persons chased the said bus, they brought back the bus to the spot and at that time, he has observed the bus number. It is seen that PW-2 has given the bus number as MH-03-2566. Therefore, the contradiction arising out the evidence of PW-2 that the bus was brought back to the spot as against the statement of the complainant before the police that he observed the bus number and returned to the spot, cannot be made much of, as in the evidence of PW-2 and also in the statement of Vijay Tukaram Garad, there is no change in the registration number of bus involved in the accident. On the other hand, neither the driver of the bus was examined nor any other material witnesses were examined by the insurer as against the evidence of PW-2 regarding the involvement of the bus in the accident. Under these circumstances, on the basis of the contradiction in the version of PW-2 and statement made by Vijay Tukaram Garad, it cannot be held that the claimants have not proved the involvement of said vehicle in the accident. It is seen from the petition filed by the insurer before the Tribunal that initially, the insurer has denied the very issuance of policy in respect of the said vehicle and thereafter, he has denied that the driver of the bus was holding a valid and effective driving licence and further contended that the accident in question occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the deceased. 14. Under these circumstances, this Court holds that the contention of insurer that the claimants have not proved involvement of the offending bus in the accident and that the deceased sustained injuries in the accident involving the said bus cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the said contention of the appellant-insurer is rejected. 14. Under these circumstances, this Court holds that the contention of insurer that the claimants have not proved involvement of the offending bus in the accident and that the deceased sustained injuries in the accident involving the said bus cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the said contention of the appellant-insurer is rejected. Therefore, appeal filed by the insurer is liable to be dismissed except awarding interest at 6% p.a.. 15. The Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards personal and living expenses which ought to be 1/4. The income of the deceased as considered by the Tribunal is Rs.6,587/-p.m. as per Ex.P5 salary certificate which is correct and it does not call for interference. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the insurer, as the deceased was serving in the police department and was Government Servant, the multiplier applicable should be for the remaining period of service of the deceased. In the present case, remaining service of the deceased is 13 years and even considering the age of the deceased also multiplier applicable is 13'. The claimants are also entitled for addition of 30% towards future prospects and deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be at 1/4. Therefore, for the income of Rs.6,587/- addition of Rs.1,976/- towards future prospects is made and total income comes to Rs.8,563/- out of which 1/4 has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Remaining amount comes to Rs.6,422/- which has to be multiplied by 12 and 13. Thus, the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.10,01,871/-, towards loss of dependency. A sum of Rs.70,000/- is awarded under the conventional heads. Claimants No.2 and 3 being minors they are entitled for compensation of Rs.50,000/- each towards loss of love and affection in view of the judgment in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and Others. Claimant No.4 being the mother of the deceased, she is also entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- towards parental consortium. Thus, the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.12,11,871/- as against the compensation of Rs.7,05,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 16. The point for consideration is answered accordingly. In the result, this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER MFA No.21329/2009 and MFA Crob. No.797/2009 are partly allowed. Thus, the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.12,11,871/- as against the compensation of Rs.7,05,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 16. The point for consideration is answered accordingly. In the result, this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER MFA No.21329/2009 and MFA Crob. No.797/2009 are partly allowed. The claimants are awarded compensation of Rs.12,11,871/-, with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. The compensation deposited in MFA No.21329/2009 shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal. The entire amount shall be disbursed to the claimants as claimant Nos.2 and 3 have also attained majority and the accident is of the year 2004 in the ratio of 40:25:25:10.