The court clarified the parameters for compensation in fatal accident claims, emphasizing the assessment of notional income and future prospects as seen in established case law.

JUDGMENT :

UMESH M. ADIGA, J.

1. Both these appeals arises out of the judgment and award dated 29.09.2016 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, MACT at Kunigal in MVC.No.1279/2009 (for short 'the Tribunal').

2. MFA.No.8183/2016 is filed by the insurer and MFA.CROB.No.21/2019 is filed by the claimants.

3. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

4. The brief facts of the case are that, on 18.6.2009 around 7.00 a.m. deceased Jayanth was traveling in a lorry bearing registration No. KA-06-C-7272 as a cleaner. The driver of the said lorry drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner near K.R. Halli gate at Hiriyur Taluk and hit against lorry going ahead of it; As a result of which, the Jayanth sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries. The deceased was aged about 19 years and was working as a coolie in the said lorry and he was also doing business and was earning Rs.7,000/- per month. The claimants were dependent upon the earnings of the deceased. On these reasons, they prayed to award compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-.

5. Respondent No.2 - insurer denied the contentions of the claimants and also denied its liability to pay the compensation. On these reasons prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. The Tribunal framed necessary issues and additional issues.

7. The claimant to prove his case examined two witnesses as PWs-1 and 2 and marked Exs.P1 to P18. Respondent No.2 examined one witness as RW-1 and marked Exs.R1 to R4. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry by its driver. Assessed the age of the deceased as 18 years, his monthly income as Rs.4,500/- deducted 1/4^th of his income towards personal expenses and applied multiplier as '18' and awarded following amount of compensation:

8. The insurer challenged the said judgment on the ground that he is not liable to pay the compensation.

9. The claimants filed for enhancement of the compensation.

10. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for both the sides.

11. Learned counsel for insurer vehemently contended that according to the case of the claimants, he was a sales man as well as writer in the office of Gokul Diary products. In Ex.P13 - it is mentioned that he was earning Rs.3,000/- per month by working as a salesman- cum-writer. If that is the case, he was traveling as a coolie is not believable. The contention of the claimant is contrary to the documents produced by them. Therefore, it is contended that solely for the purpose of claiming compensation, falsely pleaded as he was a cleaner of the said lorry. The Tribunal has erroneously accepted the same and decided the matter. He further contended that as per Ex.P13, the income of the deceased was Rs.3,000/- per month, whereas the Tribunal wrongly assessed his income as Rs.4,500/- per month while computing compensation. Moreover, it was contended that claimants were not dependant upon the deceased. Claimant No.1 is the step mother, claimant Nos.2, 3 and 4 are natural sisters and claimant No.5 is the step sister. These facts are not considered by the Tribunal. With these reasons, it is prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

12. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the deceased was a cleaner of the lorry, which is noted in Ex.P.13. As per the case of the claimant, he was earning Rs.7,000/- per month. However, the claim