JUDGMENT :

Alok Aradhe, J.

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 seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation against the judgment dated 03.02.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 27.08.2012, the deceased Lakshmankumar was traveling in a Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Bus bearing registration No.KA-06-F-298 (hereinafter referred to as 'the offending vehicle' for short). When the offending vehicle reached near Jai Public School, Uruvekere, Tumkur, the same was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, due to which the deceased fell down from the offending vehicle. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same.

3. The claimants thereupon filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation on the ground that the deceased was aged about 25 years at the time of accident and was employed as an executive at ANZ Company, Bangalore and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. It was further pleaded that accident took place solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.80,00,000/- along with interest.

4. The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation filed written statement, in which the mode and manner of the accident was denied. It was pleaded that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the deceased himself. The age, avocation and income of the deceased was also denied and it was pleaded that the claim of the claimants is exorbitant and excessive.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant No.1 examined himself as PW-1, Mallikarjunaiah (PW2) and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P26. The respondents neither adduced any oral evidence nor any documentary evidence. 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. It was further held, that as a result of aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.7,09,200/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation.

6. Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the Tribunal grossly erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.8,900/-per month when Ex.P5 to Ex.P21 Marksheets of the deceased as well as Ex.P24 Appointment Letter clearly indicate that the deceased had the potential to earn Rs.1,00,000/- per month. It is further submitted that the Tribunal erred in not making an addition to the tune of 40% to the income of the deceased on account of future prospects in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in ‘NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS’ AIR 2017 SC 5157. It is further submitted that the sums awarded under the heads ‘loss of consortium’ and ‘funeral expenses’ are on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced suitably. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that no evidence has been adduced by the claimants to prove the income of the deceased before the Tribunal and that the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased notionally at Rs.8,900/- per month. It is further submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference.

7. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The only question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is with regar