JUDGMENT :

H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD, J.

1. This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 2.2.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 31.8.2011 the deceased Durgaram was proceeding on his TVS moped bearing No. KA-52-H-2574 in NH4 and when he reached near Goraguntepalya junction, at that time, a lorry bearing registration No. KA-02-D-3369 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act on the ground that the deceased was aged about 37 years at the time of accident and was employed as salesman and was earning Rs. 8,000/- p.m. The claimants claimed compensation along with interest.

4. On service of summons, the respondent No. 2 appeared through Counsel and filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. It was further pleaded that driver of the lorry was not having valid licence as on the date of the accident. It was further pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition. The respondent No. 1 did not appear inspite of service of notice and was placed ex-parte.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimants, in order to prove their case, examined claimant No. 1 as P.W. 1 and another witness as P.W. 2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex. P1 to Ex. P19. On behalf of respondents, no witness was examined but got exhibited document namely Ex. R1. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 10,84,600/- along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

6. The learned Counsel for the claimants has raised the following contentions:

Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month by working as salesman. But the Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased as merely as Rs. 5,500/-.

Secondly, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others [AIR 2017 SC 5157], in case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income towards 'future prospects' should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years.

Thirdly, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram reported in 2018 ACJ 2782, each of the claimants are entitled for compensation under the head of 'loss of love and affection and consortium'.

Fourthly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the conventional heads is on the lower side.

Hence, the learned Counsel appearing for the claimants prays for allowing the appeal.

7. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has raised the following counter-contentions:

Firstly, even though the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month by working as salesman, the same is not established by the claimants by producing documents