Point of law: Claimants being the legal heirs of deceased are entitled for compensation under the head of loss of future prospects of the deceased.

JUDGMENT :

MFA No.103558/2019 is filed by the appellants-claimants, who are the legal heirs of deceased Santhosh, seeking for enhancement of compensation. MFA No.103500/2019 is filed by the appellant-Reliance General Insurance Company challenging the liability as well as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal vide judgment and award dated 17.06.2019 passed by the Addl. MACT and Senior Civil Judge, Khanapur in MVC No.826/2016.

2. Brief facts giving raise to filing of these appeals are that on 06.03.2016 at about 6.45 p.m. one Santosh Mahadev Ghadi was proceeding on motorcycle bearing No.KAGA-05/K-3830 from his village to Goa on Khanapur-Hemmadaga road. At that time, near Dongargao cross, one Mahindra Bulero vehicle bearing No.KA-22/B-4535 came from opposite direction in a high speed, rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle resulting in the death of Santosh Ghadi. The legal representatives of the deceased Santosh filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 seeking compensation.

3. It is averred that prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy, working in MRF Tyre Factory at Tisk Phonda-Goa as operator and earning Rs.35,000/- p.m. It is further averred that respondent No.1 being the driver, respondent No.2 being the owner and respondent No.3 being the insurer of the offending vehicle, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

4. The respondents appeared before the Tribunal and filed separate objections. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have contended that vehicle bearing No.KA-22/B-4535 is owned by respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 was having valid driving licence at the time of accident, hence, respondent No.3, who is insurer of the said vehicle, is liable to pay compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. Respondent No.3 in its objections contended that the petition filed by the claimants is false, frivolous and vexatious. It is averred that the claim petition is liable to be dismissed for non-compliance of Section 134 (c) and 158(6) of Motor Vehicles act, 1988. It is further averred that the death of the deceased is not due to the accidental injuries involving Mahindra bolero vehicle bearing No.KA-22/B-4535 as alleged in the claim petition. It is also averred that it is a hit and run case by an unknown vehicle or due to some other incident Sri. Santhosh died and there is no nexus between the death of the deceased and offending vehicle. It is contended that there was no permit and fitness certificate to the offending vehicle i.e., Mahindra Bolero bearing No.KA-22/B-4535 and hence, the owner of the said vehicle has violated the policy conditions and hence, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition as against respondent No.2.

6. The Tribunal framed the issues and recorded the evidence. The wife of the deceased examined herself as PW-1 and examined two other witnesses as PW-2 and PW-3 and produced 19 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-19. The respondents examined RW-1 and produced 4 documents marked at Exs.R-1 to R-4. The Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition by awarding total compensation of Rs.32,00,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. on the following heads :

7. Learned counsel Sri Ashok A. Naik for appellants-claimants submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.20,000/- p.m. as the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.31,885/- p.m. It is submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding any compensation towards future prospects and failed to award any compensation towa