The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of notional income and the determination of compensation for loss of dependency, love and affection, and funeral expenses under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT

Alok Aradhe, J. - M.F.A.No.5654/2016 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, whereas, M.F.A.No.2961/2016 has been filed by the insurance company against judgment dated 30.01.2016 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short). Since, both the appeals arise out of the same accident and from the same judgment, they were heard analogously and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. Facts leading to filing of these appeals briefly stated are that on 22.04.2013 deceased Sanjay was riding bullet motor bike bearing registration No.KA21- EL-6251 on Kanakapura Main Road. When he reached in front of Khoday s Factory, one concrete mixer lorry bearing registration No.KA01-AA-51177, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver in high speed dashed against the motor bike of the deceased. As an impact of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained severe injuries and succumbed to the same.

3. Thereupon the claimants viz., the parents filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act inter alia on the ground that deceased was a student of Engineering College and was aged about 20 years at the time of accident. It was further pleaded that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the concrete mixer lorry The claimants therefore, claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/-. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed the written statement in which inter alia it was pleaded that the accident took place due to negligent driving of the bike on the part of the deceased. The averments made in the claim petition were denied and it was pleaded that the compensation claimed by the claimant is excessive and exorbitant.

4. The Claims Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed issues and recorded evidence. The claimants in order to prove their case examined claimant No.1 viz., the mother as PW1 and got exhibited 25 documents viz., Ex.P1 to Ex.P25. The respondents got examined one Guruprasad as RW1 and placed on record the copy of policy of insurance as Ex.R1. The Claims Tribunal vide impugned judgment inter alia held that the accident in question took place solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the concrete mixer lorry. It was further held that claimants were held entitled to a compensation of Rs.17,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Being aggrieved, these appeals have been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the deceased at the time of the accident was 2nd year student of B.E.Course in R.V.Engineering College and had a bright future. The Tribunal grossly erred in treating the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.25,000/- per month and erred in deducting half of the amount towards personal expenses. It is further submitted that the amount towards future prospects ought to have been added to the notional income of the deceased. It is also submitted that since, the parents were dependants on the deceased, therefore, 1/3rd of the amount ought to have been deducted from the income of the deceased In view of law laid down by Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . Reliance has also been placed on decision of the Supreme Court in ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA VS. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS, (2010) 10 SCC 254 . On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that from perusal of the charge sheet, it is evident that the vehicle was not having the fitness certificate and therefore, the insurance company be granted the liberty to pay the amount and recover the same from the owner. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on decision of High Court of Kerala in PAREED PILLAI VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,2018 10 LAWS(KER) 124'. It is further submitted that the notional income of the deceased who was a stud