The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the insurer, assessment of notional income, and entitlement to future prospects and enhanced compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT

S.G.Pandit, J. - Both the claimants and M/s ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance Co., Ltd., the insurer of the offending vehicle, are in appeal aggrieved by the judgment and award, dated 14.09.2015 passed in M.V.C. No.1385 of 2014 on the file of the III Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Ballari (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal', for short). The claimants not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation are in appeal in M.F.A. No.100041 of 2016 praying for enhancement of the compensation, whereas the insurer has filed M.F.A. No.103249/2015 questioning the liability saddled on it.

2. The claimants are the wife, parents and brothers of one Honnur Swamy who died in a road traffic accident. A claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') praying for compensation for the accidental death of Honnur Swamy in a road traffic accident which took place on 06/07-12-2014 involving motorcycle bearing No.KA-34/S-5008 and SRS bus bearing No.KA- 42/6007. The claimants contended that the deceased Honnur Swamy was aged 21 years as on the date of the accident and was earning Rs.500/- per day by doing coolie work, and was contributing his earnings to the family. On issuance of notice, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained absent, whereas respondent No.3-insurer appeared and filed its written statement. In the written statement, the entire case of the claimants was denied in toto. It is also denied the issuance of policy in respect of the offending vehicle and that respondent No.1 had no valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident.

3. The claimants, in support of their case, got examined claimant No.1 as P.W.1, apart from marking the documents as Exs.P.1 to P.12. The respondent No.3- insurer examined R.W.1, apart from marking the documents as Exs.R.1 to R.4. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of the material placed before it, awarded a total compensation of Rs.8,85,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation, on the following heads:

While awarding the above compensation, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month, deducted 1/4th towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and applied multiplier of 18'. Further, the Tribunal saddled the liability to pay the compensation, jointly and severally, on respondent Nos.2 and 3 and directed respondent No.3-insurer to deposit the entire compensation.

4. The claimants not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, are before this Court praying for enhancement of the compensation, whereas the insurer of the offending vehicle is before this Court aggrieved by the saddling of liability to pay the compensation.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants, the learned counsel for the insurance company and the learned counsel for the owner of the offending bus. Perused the trial Court records.

6. The learned counsel for the claimants would submit that the deceased was doing coolie work earning Rs.500/- per day. The accident is of the year 2014. The Tribunal ignoring the evidence of P.W.1, the wife of the deceased, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month which is on the lower side. He would submit that the notional income of a person taken by this Court and the Lok Adalats, while settling the accident claims of the year 2014, would be on the much higher side. Hence, he prays for assessing the notional income of the deceased as would be assessed by this Court and Lok Adalats. He would submit that the Tribunal failed to award any compensation towards future prospect