The court established that in calculating compensation for road traffic accident victims, future prospects must be included, and the application of the multiplier method should be consistent with established legal principles, ensuring that claimants receive just compensation.

JUDGMENT

MOHAMMAD NAWAZ, J. - This appeal is preferred by the claimants, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded to them by the Tribunal in MVC.No.1735/2015 by its judgment and award dtd. 21/7/2017, for the death of one Babulal Jainapur who died in a road traffic accident which took place on 13/11/2015, involving a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA28-W-8653 and Car bearing Reg.No.KA-28-N-3979.

2. The claimants are the mother, wife and two children of deceased Babulal Jainapur. Before the Tribunal, compensation of Rs.66, 80, 000.00 was claimed with interest. The Tribunal was pleased to award a total compensation of Rs.17, 31, 100.00 with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of depositing the amount.

3. According to the claimants, the accident occurred near Mulawad Cross, when the deceased was going to Mulawad on a Motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-28- W-8653. It is stated, the driver of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-28-N-3979 came in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the motorcycle of the deceased and due to the impact, deceased fell on the road side ditch and sustained injuries to his head, both legs and other parts of the body and died while being shifted to the hospital.

4. The insurer of the offending vehicle, refuted the claim on various grounds and it was also contended that the driver of the motorcycle as well as the Car were not possessing a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident.

5. On behalf of the claimants, three witnesses were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P18 were marked. The respondents got marked Ex.R1-DL extract and Ex.R2-copy of the policy. No witness was examined on behalf of the respondents.

6. The following issues were framed by the Tribunal :

1. Whether the petitioners prove that on 13/11/2015 at about 2.30 p.m. on Vijayapur-Kolhar road, (NH-218), near Mulawad cross, when the deceased Babulal Jainapur was going in a Motorcycle bearing No.KA-28/W-8653, the driver of Car bearing No.KA-28/N3979 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner from Vijayapur side and dashed against the said Motorcycle and in the said accident the said Babulal had sustained fatal injuries and later succumbed to the injuries as alleged?

2. Whether the respondent No.2 prove that the driver of Car bearing No.KA-28/N3979 did not possess valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle at the time of accident as alleged?

3. Whether the respondent No.2 prove that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

4. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum and from whom?

5. What order or award?

7. The Tribunal having appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record, answered issue No.1 in the affirmative, issue Nos.2 and 3 in the negative and issue Nos.4 and 5 as per the final order.

8. It is rightly observed by the Tribunal that in order to substantiate its case, the insurance company has not led any evidence or given complaint against the rider of the motorcycle stating that false complaint was given against the driver of the Car. Charge sheet was filed after a detailed investigation against the driver of the Car. Hence, the contention raised by the insurance company that the driver of the offending Car was not negligent in causing the accident was negated by the Tribunal. Further, considering the evidence given by PW1 and PW2 coupled with the documents Ex.P1 and Ex.P2, it was held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending Car, which resulted in the death of the deceased. Further, considering Ex.D1-DL extract of the driver of the offending vehicle and in the absence of any contrary evidence, the contention of the insurance company that there was no valid and effective driving licence was rightly rejected. It is not in dispute that the insurance company has not preferred any appeal against the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

9. The learned counse