JUDGMENT : 1. The owner of the vehicle which was involved in the accident is in appeal in MFA No.101541/2017 challenging the compensation of Rs.11,32,880/, passed by the Tribunal, which has been saddled completely on her. 2. The claim petition was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased Fakirappa Kareppa Madar contending that while Fakirappa Kareppa Madar was returning to his native place after purchase of masonry instruments from Kittur in the vehicle owned by the appellant, an accident had occurred in which he was killed. 3. This claim petition was contested by both the owner of the vehicle and also by the Insurance Company. 4. The owner of the vehicle stated as follows in his objections as regards the claim of the claimants about Fakirappa Kareppa Madar traveling in the vehicle: “3) It is true to say that, on the date of the alleged accident, the deceased Fakirappa Kareppa Madar was traveling in the said vehicle along with his goods .” Thus, the owner of the vehicle admitted that Fakirappa Kareppa Madar was traveling in the vehicle along which his goods. 5. The Insurance Company contested the mater and filed the following objections: “I. Herein the written statement on behalf o f respondent No.2 i.e., Shriram GIC Ltd. , Sitapur, Jaipur (Rajasthan) the address of the respondent No .2 for the service of summons notice, etc. , is as shown in the cause title o f the claim petition and that of its counsel is Shri G.B . Shigihalli, Advocate Bailhongal. II. HEREIN, the ob jections of the respondent No .2 are as under: 1] The claim petition filed by the petitioner is false frivolous misleading and hence, untenable in the eye o f law . 2] This respondent specifically submits that the Goods TATA as vehicle No .KA-24/6696 is not at all insured with this respondent No .2 at the time of the accident . That the owner has taken the policy against the said vehicle No .KA- 24/6696 for the period from 01 .4.2011 to 31.3 .2012 vide policy No .10003/31/12/049828. The alleged accident took place on 28.03 .2011 i.e, after five days from the date of the alleged accident. That the owner has taken the policy against the said vehicle No .KA- 24/6696 for the period from 01 .4.2011 to 31.3 .2012 vide policy No .10003/31/12/049828. The alleged accident took place on 28.03 .2011 i.e, after five days from the date of the alleged accident. Hence, there was no policy and contract between the owner of the vehicle and this respondent insurance company at the time of the alleged accident and therefore question of indemnify the owner does not arise at all and not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. If the petitioner produce the policy particulars covering the date of accident then this respondent may be permitted to file an additional written statement in respect of other averments. Therefore, the present claim is liable to be dismissed against this respondent insurance company with cost . For all these reasons , this respondent most humbly prayed that the claim petition as against this respondent kindly be dismissed with costs, to meet the ends of justice.” 6. As could be seen from the objections from the second respondent, the Insurance Company did not dispute the averment that the deceased was traveling in the goods vehicle along with his goods and the Insurance Company only took up the contention that the accident took place on 28.03.2011 i.e., five days before the issuance of the policy and therefore they were not liable. 7. The Tribunal on consideration of the entire evidence adduced before it proceeded to record a finding that the deceased Fakirappa Kareppa Madar was killed in the motor vehicle accident which occurred on 28.03.2011, when he was returning to his native place and that the legal heirs were entitled to a compensation of Rs.11,32,880/. 8. The Tribunal has also recorded a finding that the cover note issued by the Insurance Company which was marked as Ex.R1 indicated that the period of insurance coverage was from 18.03.2011 to 17.03.2012 and hence, the Insurance Company would be liable for payment of compensation, as the accident had occurred on 28.03.2011. 9. The Tribunal has however in its order come to the conclusion that the claimants had not proved that as on the date of the accident the deceased was traveling along with goods and it therefore proceeded to foist the liability of compensation completely on the owner. 10. 9. The Tribunal has however in its order come to the conclusion that the claimants had not proved that as on the date of the accident the deceased was traveling along with goods and it therefore proceeded to foist the liability of compensation completely on the owner. 10. As stated above, it was the specific case of the claimants that the deceased was traveling in the goods vehicle along with his goods and this contention was clearly admitted by the owner. The Insurance Company did not dispute this position in its objections statement. Further the witness who was examined on behalf of the claimants as stated as follows: 11. In my view, since the plea set up by the claimants was not disputed by the owner as well as by the Insurance Company coupled with the fact that the claimants had also categorically stated even during the course of crossexamination (as extracted above) that Fakirappa Kareppa Madar was traveling in the goods vehicle along with his goods, the Tribunal has committed an error in holding that the claimants had not proved that the deceased was traveling in the vehicle along with his goods and by fastening the liability on the owner. 12. I therefore set aside that portion of the award of the tribunal by which the Insurance Company has been exonerated of the liability and hold that the Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the compensation i.e., awarded for the death of Fakirappa Kareppa Madar as determined by the tribunal. 13. The appeal in MFA No.101541/2017 filed by the appellant is accordingly allowed to this extent. 14. The amount deposited by the owner shall be refunded to the owner-appellant. 15. Apart from the above appeal by the Owner, the claimants have also filed an appeal in MFA No.103327/2017 seeking for enhancement. 16. The Tribunal in order to assess the compensation that the claimants were entitled to has come to the conclusion that it would be just and proper to consider the notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/per month. The accident is of the year 2011 and even as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for the purpose of assessing compensation for motor vehicle accident victims in the Lok Adalat, for the accident of the year 2011, the notional income has been determined at Rs.6,000/per month. 17. The accident is of the year 2011 and even as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for the purpose of assessing compensation for motor vehicle accident victims in the Lok Adalat, for the accident of the year 2011, the notional income has been determined at Rs.6,000/per month. 17. I am therefore of the view that the determination of the compensation on the assumption that the deceased was earning monthly income of Rs.6,000/per month and the resultant compensation of Rs. 11,32,880/assessed by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with. Consequently, the appeal in MFA No .103327/2017 filed by the claimants seeking for enhancement is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.