Compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act must reflect just compensation for losses, including reliance on established principles regarding earnings and pensions without deductions for pension receipts.

JUDGMENT :

T.M. NADAF, J.

1. These two appeals are listed for Admission, with the consent of both parties, the same are taken up for final disposal.

2. These two appeals are filed against the judgment and award dated 23.01.2019 passed in MVC No.1187/2017, by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT Malavali. MFA No.3259/2019 is filed by the claimants seeking for an enhancement and MFA No.4321/2019 is by the insurance company on liability, as well as on quantum.

3. The parties will be referred to as per their ranking before the Court below for easy reference.

4. The brief outline of the facts leading to filing of these appeals are as under:

In a road traffic accident occurred on 07.06.2017 at about 3.00 p.m., in front of KSRTC bus stand at Halaguru, the husband of the claimant No.1 and father of claimant Nos.2 and 3 and son of claimant no.4 by name B. Nagaraja, who was proceeding on a TVD XL Moped bearing No.KA-11-EA-8995 from Malavalli towards Halaguru on the left side of NH 209 main road, was hit by the driver of Chavrolet Tavera Car Bearing No.KA 01 AD 1218, who as driving the car in a rash and negligent manner dashed from the hind side and dragged the rider as well as the moped upto some distance. In the accident, Nagaraja sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital.

5. As per the claimants the deceased was aged 61 years old at the time of the accident and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month from agriculture and was doing milk vending business, hiring his tractor and also receiving pension in a sum of Rs.30,000/- p.m. The claimants lost an earning member of the family, which has caused loss of love and affection and dependency.

6. The claimants filed a claim petition under Section-166 of MV Act, seeking compensation of Rs.50 lakhs against the owner of the vehicle and the insurer i.e., Future General Insurance Company Limited. Upon service of notice, respondent No.1 though served remained absent and was placed exparte, whereas respondent No.2 appeared through its counsel and filed objection contending that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident, in respect of the particular type of offending vehicle, as such violated the policy condition.

7. It is further contended that the accident has occurred solely due to the negligence on the part of the deceased. The offending vehicle was not having fitness certificate permit as on the date of the accident and also contended that the amount of compensation claimed is highly exaggerated and exorbitant and seeks for dismissal of the petition.

8. The Tribunal subsequent to the completion of the pleadings, framed the following issues:

“i. Whether the petitioners prove that, the accident was taken place solely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle?

ii. Whether the petitioners prove that, due to the said impact the deceased succumbed to injuries?

iii. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as claimed? If so, to what extent and from whom?

iv. What order or award?”

9. In order to prove the case the claimant No.1 was examined as PW-1 and one witness by name Madappa was examined as PW-2, produced 16 documents and marked as Exhibits-P1 to P16. Though the second respondent filed the written statement, neither led any evidence nor produced any documents. The Tribunal upon considering the evidence both oral and documentary, and on the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in affirmative and issue No.3 partly in affirmative and thereby passed a judgment awardin