The main legal point established in the judgment is the calculation of compensation based on the deceased's actual age and income, and the applicability of the guidelines issued for settlement of cases before the Lok-Adalath and the principles established in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) AIR SC 5157.

JUDGMENT :

P.G.M. Patil, J.

The claimants in M.V.C.No.232 of 2015 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, XII, Ballari ('Tribunal' for short) have come up in this appeal.

2. It is the case of the claimants before the Tribunal that, on 16.01.2015 at about 1.30 p.m. Rangaswamy @ Guru Swamy S/o. Late Nagappa @ Naganna and two others were proceedings on the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-34/EA-2788. Rangaswamy was riding the said motorcycle, slowly, cautiously and on proper side of the road, when they were proceeding near Petrol Bunk in Shanti Nagar, Ballari , one TATA ACE vehicle bearing registration No.KA-34/A-5631 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle, due to which, Rangaswamy sustained sever injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Therefore, the wife and children and mother of the deceased- Rangaswamy filed the claim petition in M.V.C. No.232 of 2015 claiming compensation against the driver, owner and insurer of the of fending TATA ACE vehicle.

3. Similarly, the two other injured in the said accident also filed M.V.C.Nos.233 and 235 of 2015 and all the claim petitions were heard together before the Tribunal and disposed of by common Judgment.

4. In pursuance of notice, respondent Nos.1 to 3 appeared before the Tribunal. However, respondent No.3 alone filed written statement contending that all the claim petitions are not maintainable and that they have claimed highly excessive and exorbitant compensation. He has further contended that respondent No.1 was not having a valid and effective driving licence to ride the vehicle and therefore he sought for dismissal of the claim petitions.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed issues in all the petitions and in support of the claim petitions claimants have got examined five witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.5 and got marked 28 documents as Ex.Ps.-1 to 28. The respondent No.3 has got examined two witnesses as R.W.1 and R.W.2 and got marked 5 five documents as Ex.Rs-1 to 5.

6. After hearing both the parties, Tribunal passed the impugned judgment awarding compensation of Rs.10,54,500/- to the claimants in M.V.C.No.232 of 2015 with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

7. The claimants being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

8. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the records.

9. The Claimants have contended before the Tribunal that the deceased-Rangaswamy @ Guru Swamy was aged about 30 years and he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by working as barber in his own shop at Ballari. However, the claimants have not produced any acceptable evidence to prove the income of the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal has considered the notional income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month and added 30% towards future prospects and applied multiplier 17 considering the age of the deceased as 30 years and awarded total compensation of Rs.10,54,500/-. When the appeal was heard we noticed that age of the deceased-Rangaswamy cannot be 30 years, since the first daughter of the deceased who is petitioner No.2 in the claim petition is shown as 13 years and second daughter is aged about 12 years and therefore the age of the deceased must have been much more than 30 years. The Tribunal has considered the age of the deceased as 30 years on the basis of the postmortem report, which is marked as Ex.P.7.

10. On going through the records, we noticed that the copy of driving licence of the deceased is produced, which is marked as Ex.P-15, wherein his date of birth is shown as 01.06.1978 and therefore as on the date of death he was aged about 37 years and therefore the appropriate multiplier applicable in this case is 15. In the absence of any material on record, the Tribunal has considered the notional income of deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month however, consi