The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of principles set by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority and the Supreme Court to determine appropriate compensation for victims of motor vehicle accidents.

JUDGMENT

N.S.Sanjay Gowda, J. - The claimants are in appeal being dissatisfied with the compensation of Rs.3,70,000/- that has been awarded by the Tribunal for the death of Mallaiah in a motor vehicle accident.

2. The case put forth before the Tribunal was that on 02.12.2007 when Mallaiah was walking on the side of Shivamogga Sagar NH-206 Road, an Ambassador car bearing No.CAN-1935 driven by respondent No.1 hit Mallaiah, as a result of which, Mallaiah sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.

3. The claimants being the wife and minor son sought for compensation on the ground that he was a sole bread earner. The Tribunal on consideration of the evidence adduced before it, recorded the finding that an accident did occur on 02.12.2007 when the Ambassador car bearing No.CAN-1935 hit Mallaiah and that Mallaiah died on the spot.

4. For the purpose of assessing compensation, the Tribunal has determined the monthly income of Mallaiah at Rs.3,000/- and adopted the multiplier of 14'. The Tribunal ultimately awarded a sum of Rs.3,70,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal had erred in assessing the monthly income at Rs.3,000/- per month, when even according to the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the monthly income is required to be taken as Rs.4,000/- per month. He also submitted that there was clear evidence on record that Mallaiah was aged only about 37 years and therefore, a multiplier of 15' was required to be adopted whereas the Tribunal had adopted the multiplier of 14'. He also submitted that future prospects of 40% was required to be added and the sums awarded under conventional heads are also required to be enhanced.

6. Sri O.Mahesh, learned counsel for respondent No.2 Insurance Company, on the other hand, contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just and proper having regard to the totality of evidence adduced before the Tribunal.

7. It is not in dispute that an accident did occur and Sri. Mallaiah was killed in the said accident. The postmortem report at Ex.P3 indicating that the age of Mallaiah was 30 years. The claimant, the widow produced an election identity card in which her age as on 01.01.1995 was shown as 22 years and as a consequence she would have been 37 years as on the date of the accident. The Tribunal has held that since, she admitted that Mallaiah was three years elder to her, his age should be taken as 41 years.

8. In my view, this finding may not be an appropriate way to determine the age. In my view, the interest of justice would be served, if the age of Mallaiah is taken as 40 years instead of 41 years.

9. If Mallaiah was aged 40 years, the multiplier of 15' would have to be applied. Since, the accident was of the year 2007, it would be prudent to determine the monthly income of Mallaiah to be Rs.4,000/- as per the determination of monthly income for victims of a motor vehicle accident by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi And Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 40% is required to be added towards future prospects which results the monthly income of Mallaiah to be Rs.5,600/-. Out of this 1/3rd is to be deducted which results in the monthly income to be Rs.3,752/-. Therefore, the compensation payable on account of loss of dependency would be Rs.6,75,360/- (Rs.3,752 X 12 X 15).

10. To this sum, a sum of Rs.33,000/- is required to be awarded under the conventional heads as per the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case. In addition, in accordance with the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company, a further sum of Rs.44,000/- for claimant would have to be added towards 'loss of love and affection'.

11. The amount awarded by the Tribunal in respect of the other heads are just and proper and does not call for any interference.

12. Thus the claimant wou