The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, considering factors such as notional income, loss of consortium, and the liability of the Insurance Company.

JUDGMENT :

1. Though these matters are listed for admission, with the consent of the parties, matters are taken up for final disposal.

2. Insurance Company and claimants are in appeal challenging the validity of the judgment and award dtd. 16/4/2012 passed in M.V.C.No.353/2010 by the District Judge & M.A.C.T., Gadag, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal', for short).

3. The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of the appeals are as under: A claim petition came to be filed under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 contending that on 13/9/2010 at about 12.30 p.m., one Basavaraj S/o. Mahadevappa Tirlapur was coming from Hombal to Gadag in a passenger tum tum auto bearing No.KA-26/7605. When the said auto came near the land of Puttaraj Gavaigalu, Gadag, the driver of the auto lost control over the vehicle and the auto got toppled down. As a result, injured Basavaraj sustained grievous injuries. He was shifted to District Hospital, Gadag and thereafter to Life Line Hospital, Hubli wherein Basavaraj died on 16/9/2010. Therefore, the claimants being the dependents of the deceased Basavaraj, laid a claim petition seeking awarding suitable compensation.

4. The claim petition was resisted by the respondents by filing written statement denying the petition averments in toto.

5. The Tribunal raised necessary issues and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, allowed the claim petition in a sum of Rs.13,52,995.00 as compensation.

6. Being aggrieved by the same, insurance company and claimants are in appeals.

7. Sri S.K. Kayakmath, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company vehemently contended that the driver of the auto rickshaw did not possess a valid driving licence. He further contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side and sought for allowing the appeal of the Insurance Company.

8. Per contra, Sri Deepak Maganur, learned counsel for the claimants vehemently contended that the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the income of the deceased at Rs.12,000.00 and it took the income at Rs.10,000.00. He further contended that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under loss of consortium and filial affection and conventional heads and sought for enhancement of compensation.

9. In the appeal filed by the Insurance Company, Sri M.K. Soudagar, contended that in the absence of proper proof of income the Tribunal was required to take the income in a sum of Rs.5,500.00 for the accidental claim of the year 2010 whereas the Tribunal has taken Rs.10,000.00 and therefore, the claimants have not made out a case to enhance the compensation and sought for dismissal of the appeal of the claimants.

10. Miss. Chaitra M. Goundalkar, learned counsel appearing for Sri N.D. Gunde, learned counsel for owner of the autorickshaw supported the impugned judgment.

11. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, the following points would arise for consideration:

1) Whether the Insurance Company has made out a case for shifting the liability on the owner of autorickshaw?

2) Whether the claimants have made out a case for enhancement of compensation?

12. In the case on hand, Basavaraj losing his life in a road traffic accident involving autorickshaw bearing No.KA26/7605 is established by placing necessary oral and documentary evidence on record.

13. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the RTC extracts produced at Exs.P-9 and P-10 and also certificate at Ex.P-11, assessed the notional income of the deceased in a sum of Rs.10,000.00. However there is no future income added by the Tribunal as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Further, the Tribunal did not order loss of consortium in a proper manner following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mutteppa Nagappa Karegar vs. G.B. Attar and Ors. reported in ILR 2003(3) KAR 2877 (Justice Farooq)