JUDGMENT : 1. MFA No.8719/2015 has been filed by the insurance company where as, MFA No.6438/2015 has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.06.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Since, both the appeals arise out of the same accident, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeals briefly stated are that on 17.05.2010 at about 9.00 p.m. deceased Darshan was riding motor cycle on Malleshpalya Main Road, Bangalore. While he reached Manjunatha Wood Works, another motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-51-R-5982, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No.1 came from the opposite direction and in dashed the motor cycle of the appellant. As a result of the impact of the aforesaid accident, deceased was thrown out and fell down from the motor cycle and sustained grievous injuries. The deceased was shifted to Manipal hospital. During the course of the treatment, he succumbed to injuries and expired. 3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) claiming compensation inter alia on the ground that the deceased at the time of the accident was aged 28 years and had completed MBA and was employed as officer in Bank of Baroda (retail loan factory), Brigade Road, Bangalore and was earning a sum of Rs.55,000/- p.m. It was further submitted that the claimants were entirely dependant on the income of the deceased and on account of untimely demise of the deceased, the claimants are unable to make both the ends meet. It was also pleaded that the police have registered a case for offences under Section 379 & 204(A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against respondent No.1 vide Crime No.44/2012. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,00,000/-. 4. On receipt of notice of the petition, the respondents 1 and 2 entered appearance. The respondent No.1 denied the age, avocation, income, date place and time of the accident. It was further pleaded that the deceased himself was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. It was further pleaded that the compensation claimed by the claimant is exorbitant. On receipt of notice of the petition, the respondents 1 and 2 entered appearance. The respondent No.1 denied the age, avocation, income, date place and time of the accident. It was further pleaded that the deceased himself was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. It was further pleaded that the compensation claimed by the claimant is exorbitant. The respondent No.2 in its written statement denied the assertions of the insurance policy as well as involvement of motor cycle bearing registration No.KA51-R-5982 in the accident. It was further pleaded that the aforesaid vehicle was implicated by the active collusion of the motor cyclist and the police in order to get unlawful gain. It was also pleaded that rider of the motor cycle did not have valid and effective driving licence and the owner of the vehicle knowingly entrusted the same in violation of policy condition. It has also been pleaded that as per MLC the deceased fell from motor cycle due to paralysis and not due to road traffic accident. It was also pleaded that the amount of compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the claims tribunal framed issues. The petitioner No.3 examined as PW1 and two witnesses were examined as PW2 and PW3.The claimants got marked documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P33. The respondent No.2 examined its manager legal as RW1 and two witnesses were examined as RW2 and RW3 and respondents exhibited documents viz., Ex.R1 to Ex.R32. The claims tribunal on the basis of the evidence adduced before it, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver of motor cycle bearing registration No.KA51-R-5982. It was further held that the appellants are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.24,17,408/- along with interest. Being aggrieved, these appeals have been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the insurance company while inviting the attention of this court to MLC record viz., Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 submitted that in the aforesaid record, the mode, time and place of accident has not been mentioned. It is further submitted that the insured vehicle was not involved in the accident. It is also urged that medical records should be given precedence over the police records. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed in Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Ltd. Represented by its Asst. It is further submitted that the insured vehicle was not involved in the accident. It is also urged that medical records should be given precedence over the police records. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed in Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Ltd. Represented by its Asst. Vice President (Claims) vs. Javarappa and Others, M.F.A. No. 154/2011 dated 18.09.2013. 7. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The claimants have placed on record the documents, Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 viz. a copy of FIR, complaint, panchanama, sketch, post mortem examination, inquest report, IMV report and copy of the charge sheet. From perusal of the First Information Report, it is evident that a criminal case has been registered against the rider of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA51-R-5982 for offences under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and a charge sheet has been filed against him. The claimants have also examined an eye witness viz. PW3 who has stated in his evidence about the negligent driving of the offending motor cycle by its rider. The suggestion that no accident had taken place and in collusion with the police he had given false statement had been denied by the aforesaid witness. Even otherwise, from perusal of Ex.P33, the statement given by PW3 to the police, it is evident that he has stated the negligence on the part of driver of the offending motor cycle on the very next day of the accident. 8. It is pertinent to mention here that respondent No.2 has taken a specific defence that as per Medical Legal Records the deceased fell from the motor cycle due to paralysis and not due to road traffic accident. However, it is pertinent to mention here that in order to prove the aforesaid facts the respondent No.2 has neither produced any documents nor has examined any witness to show that deceased was suffering from paralysis. Thus, it is evident that on the basis of meticulous appreciation of material on record, the tribunal has recorded a finding that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA51-R-5982, which does not call for any interference in this appeal. 9. Now we may advert to the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants. 9. Now we may advert to the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants. Admittedly, the deceased was aged about 23 years and was employed as officer at Bank of Baroda. As per the evidence of Chief Manager of Bank of Baroda, the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.25,408/-. Out of the aforesaid amount, Rs.200/- p.m. was deducted as tax. In the income of the deceased, 40% of the amount has to be added towards future prospects. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.35,291/-. The deceased was bachelor at the time of the accident therefore, 50% has to be deducted towards personal expenses. Thus, the monthly dependency comes to Rs.17,645.5/- which is rounded off to Rs.17,646/-and if taking into account the age of the deceased, the multiplier of 18' is applied. The appellants are entitled to Rs.38,11,536/- amount on account of loss of dependency. In view of law laid down by the supreme court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC), the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.70,000/- towards conventional heads. Thus, the total amount of compensation awarded to the claimants comes to Rs.38,81,536/-. The aforesaid amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the claims tribunal for disbursement to the claimants. 10. To the aforesaid extent, the award passed by the tribunal is modified. Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of.