The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation for death in a road traffic accident under the Motor Vehicles Act, including the assessment of notional income and the liability of the Insurance Company.

JUDGMENT

H.T. Narendra Prasad, 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 being aggrieved by the judgment dated 24.10.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chikkamagaluru in MVC No. 540/2014.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 13.05.2014 at about 10.45 a.m. the deceased Srinivas was proceeding on TVS XL motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-01/ED-9204 along with a pillion rider near Vishwanathapura, Koppa Taluk. At that time, a Tata 407 Van bearing registration No. KA-19/6624 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 on the way to the hospital.

3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation for the death of the deceased 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. The age, occupation and income of the deceased are denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. It was further pleaded that the accident was due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the deceased himself. The driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid driving licence as on the date of the accident. It was further pleaded that the liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. 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 before the Tribunal inspite of service of notice and hence 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. 2 as PW-1 and another witness as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. On behalf of respondents, two witnesses were examined as RW-1 and RW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R4. 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. 3,55,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and since the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle, directed the owner of the offending vehicle to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

6. Sri H.C. Sundaresh, the learned counsel for the claimants has raised the following contentions:

Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased was aged about 62 years at the time of the accident and he was earning Rs. 12,000/- per month. But the Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased as only Rs. 5,000/-.

Secondly, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, 2018 ACJ 2782, each of the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs. 40,000/- under the head of 'loss of love and affection and consortium'.

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

Fourthly, in respect of liability is concerned, as on the date of the accident the driver of the offending vehicle was having valid and effective driving licence to drive LMV (non-transport), but he was driving the transport vehicle. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in, (2017)