The assessment of compensation under different heads in road traffic accident cases should consider notional income, future prospects, and relevant legal precedents.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal under Sec. 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 dtd. 8/8/2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Madhugiri in

MVC No.448/2017.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 28/1/2017 the deceasedChethankumar along with others left their Village in order to visit Sagar Taluk to take Aurvedic treatment for diabetic disease in a Car bearing Registration No.KA-43-7466 and the deceased was driving the said Car. At around 10.30 P.M., near Heggere-LabhaDabha Hotel, N.H.206, Tumakuru-Gubbi road, the driver of the Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-40-A2508 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner came from Tumakuru side and dashed against the back side of the Car. The deceased parked his Car and the drier of the lorry also stopped his lorry and the deceased got down from the Car and went near the front right side door to question the lorry driver. At that point of time, the driver of the VRL Bus bearing Registration No.PY-05-A-1105 came from Tumakuru side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed towards right portion of the lorry while over taking. As a result, the lorry moved ahead, due to which, the deceased who was standing near the front side door of the lorry fell down and the front wheel of the said lorry ran over the deceased. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot.

3. The claimants filed a petition under Sec. 166 of the Act seeking compensation for the death of the deceased along with interest.

4. On service of summons, the respondent Nos.1 to 4 have appeared through counsel and filed their separate written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. The age, occupation and income of the deceased are denied. It was further pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.

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.1 as PW-1 and another witness as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. On behalf of respondents, three witnesses were examined as RW-1 to RW-3 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R6. 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 vehicles by its drivers, 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.11, 15, 000.00 along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed both Insurance Companies to deposit 50% compensation amount each along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

6. Sri Sathisha T, learned counsel for the claimants has raised the following contentions: Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased was aged about 22 years at the time of the accident and he was earning Rs.15, 000.00 per month by working as driver. But the Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased as merely as Rs.10, 000.00.

Secondly, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS [AIR 2017 SC 5157], in case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income towards 'future prospects' should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. The same may be considered.

Thirdly, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -V- NANU RAM [2018 ACJ 278