JUDGMENT :

Though this appeal is listed today for admission, the same is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. This appeal is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional District Judge and M.A.C.T. at Tumakuru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.C.No.259/2016 in terms of the judgment and award dated 04.10.2016. Parties will henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The claim petition discloses that the claimants are the legal representatives of Shabreen Taj who was aged 19 years at the time of accident. It is stated that on 08.01.2016, Shabreen Taj and her relative were riding on a motorbike bearing Registration No.KA-06-EE-0672 from Bukkapatna Village towards Hoysalakatte Village. When they reached Bukkapatna Forest, a bus bearing Registration No.KA-06-B-5436 (henceforth referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’) dangerously driven by its driver and dashed against the motorbike. The said Shabreen Taj and the pillion rider fell down and suffered serious injuries and the said Shabreen Taj died at the spot. The claimants contended that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Hence, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-. It was stated that the deceased was pursuing her degree course and was also earning Rs.15,000/-per month by doing tailoring and household work. The owner of the offending vehicle contested the claim petition by denying the contentions therein. The insurer contested the claim petition claiming that the deceased was negligent and was responsible for the accident as she lost control of the motorbike. The insurer alternatively contended that the claimants had conspired with the jurisdictional police in implicating the offending vehicle. He also contended that the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a valid license.

4. Based on these rival contentions, the Tribunal framed issues and set down the claim petition for trial. The claimant No.2 was examined as PW.1 and he marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P6. The owner/insurer of the offending vehicle neither lead any evidence nor marked any documents.

5. Based on the documents available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. Insofar the claim for compensation is concerned, the Tribunal noticed that the claimants have not placed on record any documents in proof of the income of the deceased and hence, the Tribunal accepted the notional income of the deceased at a sum of Rs.6,000/-per month. Since the deceased was a spinster, 50% of her notional income was deducted towards her personal expenses and the Tribunal awarded the following compensation:

6. The Tribunal directed the insurer of the offending vehicle to pay the compensation along with interest at the rate of 8% per month from the date of claim petition till the date of realization.

7. Feeling aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have filed this appeal. Learned counsel for the claimants contended that in similar circumstances this Court has considered the notional income at a sum of Rs.9,500/-per month. He also contended that the deceased was pursuing her degree, hence the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation towards ‘loss of future prospects’ at 40%. In addition, he contended that the Tribunal ought to have awarded adequate compensation towards ‘loss