Point of Law: For age group of deceased, who was aged 47 years, for self-employed persons, future prospects was required to be taken at 25%.

JUDGMENT :

The present appellant was respondent No.2 in M.V.C.No.3021/2016, filed by the present respondents No.1 to 3 (claimants) against the present respondent No.4 and the present appellant, arraigning them as respondents No.1 and 2 respectively, in the Court of the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, and XVI Additional Judge, Court of small Causes, Bangalore, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the Tribunal”).

2. The present respondents No.1 to 3, who were the claimants before the Tribunal in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the M.V. Act”) have stated that, on the date 27-03-2016, at about 9:15 p.m., the husband of the claimant No.1, who was also the father of the claimant Nos.2 and 3 respectively was going on his Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.AP-03/AN-9551, on Palamaner-Chittoor Main Road, in Chittoor District. While he was near Rangababu Cross, a Motor vehicle Maxi Cab bearing Registration No.KA-19/D-3040, being driven by its driver at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, came from Chittoor side and dashed against the Motor Cycle of the deceased. Due to the said road traffic accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the said injuries on the spot.

The claimants in their claim petition have stated that, at the time of the road traffic accident, the deceased was aged about 47 years and was earning a sum of Rs.50,000/-by doing Cloths business and that all the claimants were depending upon his income. With this, they had claimed compensation of a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-from respondents No.1 and 2 therein, arraigning them as the owner and insurer of the motor vehicle Maxi Cab, respectively.

3. In response to the summons from the Tribunal, both the respondents appeared through their counsels. Respondent No.2 filed its statement of objections, denying the manner of occurrence of the road traffic accident, as contended by the claimants. It also specifically denied the age, income and occupation of the deceased. It categorically stated that the rider of the Motor Cycle and the driver of the alleged offending vehicle Maxi Cab did not possess any valid and effective Driving Licence as at the time of the occurrence of the road traffic accident. With this, it denied its liability to compensate the claimants in any manner, for the alleged death of the deceased in the said road traffic accident. The respondent No.1 (owner) before it, though appeared, did not file any statement of objections.

4. Before the Tribunal, the claimants got examined claimant No.1 as PW-1 and also examined one Sri.K. Vadivelu Chetty as PW-2 and got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-15(a). However, on behalf of the respondents, neither any witness was examined nor any documents were got marked.

5. After framing the issues and recording the evidence led by both side, the Tribunal, by its impugned judgment dated 27-01-2017, allowed the claim petition in part, holding the respondent No.2-Insurance Company (appellant herein) before it, liable to pay the compensation to the claimants of a sum of Rs.22,03,000/-under the following heads with the sum shown against them, at the rate of Rs.9% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of payment:

It is being aggrieved by the said judgment and award of the Tribunal, wherein the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants therein (respondents No.1 to 3 herein) and fastening the liability upon the present appellant, who, as an insurer of the alleged offending Max