The assessment of notional income, future prospects, and appropriate multiplier is crucial in determining compensation in motor accident claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT

S.G.Pandit, J. - The claimants are before this Court in this appeal not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 12.09.2013 passed in M.V.C. No.962/2012 on the file of the III Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bellary (for short 'the Tribunal'), and praying for enhancement of the compensation.

2. The claimants are the parents and the sister of the deceased Umesh. The claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') claiming compensation for the accidental death of deceased Umesh. It is stated that on 20.08.2012, at about 12.10 p.m., while Umesh was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing registration No.KA- 16/W-1271, a bus bearing registration No.KA-16/B-7777 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motor cycle, as a result of which, Umesh sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The deceased was aged 22 years as on the date of the accident and he was working as an Electrician earning a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month.

3. On issuance of notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared and filed their written statement denying the claim averments. The insurer contended that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the offending vehicle and also due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle. The insurer further contended that the liability, if any, is subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

4. The claimants, in support of their case, got examined claimant No.1 as P.W.1 and another witness as P.W.2 apart from marking documents as Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.11. The respondents did not lead any oral evidence. However, copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex.R.1.

5. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of the material on record, awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,13,000/- on the following heads:

While awarding the above compensation, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month, applied the multiplier 9' having regard to the age of the younger parent i.e. mother.

6. The claimants not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal are before this Court in this appeal.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for respondent No.2-insurance company.

8. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side since the assessment of income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.4,500/- per month is on the lower side. He submits that the deceased was working as an Electrician and was earning Rs.8,000/- per month. Further, he submits that the claimants examined P.W.2, the employer and also produced Ex.P.7, the certificate issued by the employer, which indicates the salary of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month, but the Tribunal committed an error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month ignoring Ex.P.8 and evidence of P.W.2. Therefore, he submits that the income of the deceased be assessed at Rs.8,000/- per month taking note the evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.P.7.

9. Further, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal failed to award compensation towards future prospects. The learned counsel relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) ACJ 2700 , and Hemraj Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., (2018) ACJ 5 submits that the claimants would be entitled for addition of 40% of the assessed income of the deceased towards future prospects since th