The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, including the assessment of income, future prospects, and consortium entitlements of the claimants.

JUDGMENT

Shankar Ganapathi Pandit, J. - Though this appeal as well as cross objection are listed for admission, they are taken up for final disposal, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties.

2. The insurer-New India Assurance Company is in appeal in MFA No. 100226/2019 challenging the liability as well as quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants, whereas the claimants are in cross objection in MFA Crob No. 100056/2019 praying for enhancement of compensation, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under judgment and award dated 20.09.2018 passed in MVC No. 1269/2016 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Bailhongal (for short, 'Tribunal').

3. The claimants, who are the wife, children & parents of the deceased Iranagouda M Patil, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the accidental death of deceased Iranagouda M Patil that took place on 03.01.2016 involving Tractor bearing registration No. KA-24/TA-6272 and TATA Tipper vehicle bearing registration No. GA-09/U-2513. It is stated that the deceased was aged 34 years as on the date of the accident and earning Rs. 20 lakhs per annum by doing agricultural work; earning not less than Rs. 8,00,000/- per annum by doing sugarcane transport business and also earning Rs. 2,00,000/- by giving the Tractor on hire for carrying out agricultural operations.

4. On issuance of notice, respondent No. 1-owner of Tata Tipper vehicle and Respondent No. 2-New India Assurance Company Limited appeared through their respective counsel. Respondent No. 2-Insurance Company filed its statement of objections inter-alia contending that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased who was driving the tractor in question. It is also contended that the driver of Tata Tipper was not at all involved in the alleged accident and in the complaint initially filed would not indicate number and type of the vehicle involved. Thus, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. Before the Tribunal, claimants examined PW1 and PW2 apart from marking the documents as Exs. P1 to P93. No witness was examined on behalf of the respondents but Exs. R1 to R4 were marked. The Tribunal on appreciation of the material evidence on record awarded a total compensation of Rs. 29,07,654/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit on the following heads:

6. While awarding the above compensation, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 2,30,355/- per annum, applied multiplier of 16 as the deceased was aged 34 years and deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased.

7. Heard Sri. G.N. Raichur, learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company and Sri. Hanamant R Latur, learned counsel for the cross-objectors-claimants and perused the appeal papers along with original records.

8. Sri. G.N. Raichur, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-New India Assurance Company in support of his appeal would contend that the accident occurred due to sole negligent driving of the tractor by the deceased. Learned counsel referring to Ex. P5-Sketch would submit that the accident had taken place in the middle of the road and the deceased driver of the tractor was driving the vehicle on the middle of the road, which resulted in tipper lorry dashing the tractor from behind. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the tractor suddenly came to the middle of the road and as such, driver of the tripper had no option and even though he applied brake, dashed to the tractor.

9. W