The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal principles to determine compensation for road traffic accidents, including assessment of notional income, future prospects, and other relevant factors.

JUDGMENT :

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 being aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.08.2017 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sira in MVC No.198/2016.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 14.01.2016 at about 02.30 p.m., when one Hanumantharayappa along with deceased-Maradi Ranganatha were waiting for the Bus on Tumkur-Sira NH-4 service road, near Bramhasandra Gate, Kallambella Hobli, Sira Taluk and at that time, the driver of Maruthi Omni Car bearing Registration No.KA-02-MJ-5797 from Tumkur towards Sira on the said NH-4 road drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the deceased and others. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

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

4. On service of summons, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and only respondent No.2 has filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. 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.P8. On behalf of respondents, neither any witness was examined nor any document was produced. 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 vehicle by its driver, 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.8,70,000/-along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

6. The 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.10,000/-per month by doing agricultural work, milk vending and flower business. But the Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased as merely as Rs.7,500/-.

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 2782], each of the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/-under the head of ‘loss of love and affection and consortium’.

Fourthly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the conventional heads is on the lower side. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised the following counter-contentions:

Firstly, even though the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, the same is not established by the claimants by producing documents. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly asse