The determination of compensation must be fair and reasonable, considering the notional income and loss incurred by the dependents, as per the legal standards.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

RAMACHANDRA D.HUDDAR, J. - This appeal is preferred under Sec.173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the MV Act') by the appellants-claimants in claim petition filed under Sec. 166 of MV Act in MVC No.740/2018 before the MACT, Kalaburagi constituted under Sec. 165 of MV Act, challenging the inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal as per the award dtd. 2/1/2020.

2. As the short point is involved with regard to inadequacy of the compensation, with consent of both the side, we have taken up this appeal for final disposal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that, on 24/2/2018 at about 5.15 p.m. deceased Sanjukumar to attend his personal work had been to Choudapur. After completion of his work, when he was returning to his village Dhannur on his motor bike bearing Regn.No.KA-27-R-4978 and when he came near Kadaganchi Petrol Pump on Choudapur-Afzalpur Main Road, a driver of a KSRTC bus bearing Regn.No.KA-32-F-1860 by driving the bus in rash and negligent manner dashed against the motor cycle driven by Sanjukumar. He sustained grievous injuries on his head and other parts of the body. He was shifted to Hospital in an ambulance. But, succumbed to the accidental injuries in the Hospital.

4. It is the further case of the claimants that, prior to the accident, deceased was running a Kirana Shop and used to earn Rs.20,000.00. Claimant no.1 being wife, claimant no.2 being his son and claimant no.3 and 4 being the parents of deceased were depending upon the earning of deceased Sanjukumar. Now, they are deprived of their earning member because of untimely death of deceased. Hence, it is prayed before the tribunal to award compensation of Rs.61,00,000.00.

5. Pursuant to the notice issued by the MACT, both the respondents appeared. Respondent no.1 has not filed any objections whereas, respondent no.2 filed the objections denying the entire assertions made in the petition.

6. It is contended that, it is rider of the motor bike i.e. deceased who was rash and negligent in riding his motor bike and due to his negligence, the said accident has taken place. The police have registered a false case against the Driver of the bus. The compensation so claimed is exorbitant. It is prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. Based upon the rival pleadings, the learned MACT framed following five issues:

"1. Whether the petitioners prove that on 24/2/2018 at or about 5.55 p.m. on Chowdapur-Afzalpur Road, Near Kadaganchi Petrol Pump Afzalpur, when the deceased Sanju Kumar was proceeding on Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-27/R-4978, at that movement the driver of the KSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-32/F-1860 drove at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the deceased motor cycle thereby the accident occurred and succumbed to injuries in the accident?

2. Whether the petitioners prove that they are the legal heirs and dependents of the deceased?

3. Whether the respondent proves that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as contended in para no.7 of the objection statement?

4. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation ? If so, from whom ?

5. What order or award?"

8. To substantiate the claim of the claimants, claimant no.1 appeared before the MACT and was examined himself as PW.1. Got marked Ex.P1 to P10 and closed claimant's evidence.

9. To rebut the evidence of the claimants, representative of respondent no.2 entered the witness box as RW.1. No documents are marked on behalf of respondent no.2. Both PW.1 and RW.1 are thoroughly cross-examined.

10. The learned MACT having heard the arguments and on perusal of the oral and documentary evidence answered issue no.1 in the affirmative, issue no.4 partly in the affirmative and issue nos. 2 and 3 in the negative and ultimately awarded compensation of Rs.19,98,000.00 fastening liability on respondent no.2 to deposit the same by fixing the time limit with deposit clause.

11. After filing of this appeal, learned Advocate for respondent no.2 Sri Mallayy