The court relied on recent judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court to re-determine the compensation and highlighted the importance of determining the monthly income notionally in the absence of material evidence.

JUDGMENT

S. Sujatha, J. - This appeal is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation challenging the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-8) dated 10.07.2014 in MVC No.930/2013, whereby the total compensation of Rs.7,52,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realisation is awarded.

2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are as under:-

The claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for short) claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for the death of Sri. C.H. Ganesh Bhat in a road traffic accident. It was alleged that the actionable negligence of the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.KA-16-B-6240 (offending vehicle) duly insured with the insurer was the cause for the accident in question which occurred on 04.01.2013 at about 6.50 a.m. while Sri. C.H. Ganesh Bhat was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-09-M-1991 from Summanahalli to Mysore road duly following the traffic rules and regulations. As a result of the accident, the rider of the motorcycle Sri. C.H. Ganesh Bhat succumbed to the grievous injuries sustained, on the spot.

It was contended that the deceased Sri. C.H. Ganesh Bhat was hale and healthy and working as a priest at different temples and was also engaged in conducting obsequies ceremonies and he was getting monthly income of Rs.20,000/-. Wife, minor child aged about 11 years and the parents of the deceased filed the claim petition on the aforesaid pleadings claiming compensation.

In response to the notice issued, respondent No.1 owner of the vehicle had not appeared and was placed ex-parte. Respondent No.2 - insurer appeared through its counsel and filed written statement contending that the claim petition is not maintainable denying the averments made in the petition.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed. The wife of the deceased was examined as PW1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1to P46. The respondents neither have examined any witness nor marked any documents. Based on the material evidence available on record and for the reasons recorded in the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal allowed the petition in part as aforementioned. Being dissatisfied, the claimants are before this Court seeking for enhancement of compensation.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants contended that the deceased was aged about 46 years at the time of the accident and was earning income of about Rs.30,000/- per month as a priest. Considering the nature of the work of the deceased, the Tribunal ought to have determined the monthly income at Rs.30,000/-. The notional income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.6,000/- is arbitrary and unreasonable. It was argued that the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th of the income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. The total compensation awarded under the different conventional heads is abysmally low.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the insurer made an endeavor to justify the impugned judgment and award. It was argued that there was a contributory negligence on the part of the deceased but the Tribunal failed to appreciate the same and fixed the entire liability on the insurer which requires to be considered by this Court.

5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.

6. The submission of the learned counsel for the insurer inasmuch as contributory negligence on the part of the deceased cannot be countenanced at this stage for the reason that neither such arguments were advanced before the Tribunal nor any finding has been given by the Tribunal on adjudication of the said aspect. Further, in the appeal filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation, the said arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the insurer cannot be entertained since the neg