The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of guidelines for assessing compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act and the insurer's liability to pay compensation despite policy breaches.

JUDGMENT :

Alok Aradhe, 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 seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation against the judgment dated 28.01.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short).

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 19.06.2015, the deceased Ramachandra Thakur was proceeding in a vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-19-C-5015. When he reached near Mangalur Junction, a lorry bearing Registration No.MP-20-HB-5677, which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite direction and dashed against the vehicle in which the deceased was traveling. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same.

3. The claimants thereupon filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation on the ground that the deceased was aged about 41 years at the time of accident and was engaged as a coolie at Baikampadi Industrial Area, Mangalore and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. It was further pleaded that accident took place solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/- along with interest.

4. The insurance company filed written statement, in which the mode and manner of the accident was denied. It was also pleaded that the driver of the lorry was intoxicated at the time of accident and that the liability of the insurance company, if any, would be subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The age, avocation and income of the deceased was also denied and it was pleaded that the claim of the claimants is exorbitant and excessive.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant No.1 examined herself as PW-1, Nagraj (PW2) and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. The respondents examined Kavitha (RW1) and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R7. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. It was further held, that as a result of aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.10,92,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum and directed the owner of the offending lorry to pay the aforesaid amount of compensation. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation.

6. Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the Tribunal grossly erred in dismissing the claim petition as against the insurance company on the ground that there was a violation of policy condition. It is further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have invoked the principle of pay and recovery in view of the decision of the full bench of this court in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. YALLAVA AND ANR. 2020(2) AKR 484. It is also submitted that the Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month and in any case, the same ought to have been taken as per the guidelines framed by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not making an addition to the tune of 25% to the income of the deceased on account of future prospects in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in ‘NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS’ AIR 2017 SC 5157. It is also urged that the sums awarded under the heads ‘loss of consortium’ and ‘funeral expenses’ are on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced suitably. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company submitted th