Compensation in motor vehicle accident claims must consider all components of a deceased's income, including allowances, while applying only statutory deductions.

JUDGMENT :

K V ARAVIND, J.

Although these appeals are listed for admission, with the consent of the learned counsels on both sides, the matters are taken up for final hearing.

2. Both these cross appeals arise out of common judgment and award dated 11.01.2018. Hence, disposed of by common judgment.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to according to their respective ranks before the Tribunal.

4. MFA No. 101574/2018 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement, and MFA No. 101361/2018 is filed by the insurer seeking modification of the award passed in MVC No. 240/2016 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dharwad (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal').

5. The claimants have filed a petition under Section 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (for short, the ‘M.V. Act’), seeking compensation of Rs.50,04,000/-. It is averred in the claim petition that the deceased, B. Nagendrappa— husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2— met with a motor vehicle accident on 02.01.2016 at approximately 9:00 a.m., while he was travelling in a car bearing registration No. KA-17/P-1446. The said accident is alleged to have occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, who is the owner of the said vehicle, near Hosakatti village on the Ramanakoppa– Kundgol Road. It is further pleaded that the deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident while being shifted to the hospital. It is also averred that the deceased was employed as a Physical Education Teacher at Vishwachetan Vidyaniketan Residential English Medium School, Siramagondanahalli, Davangere, drawing a monthly salary of Rs.45,000/-, and was additionally earning Rs.10,00,000/- per annum from agricultural activities. The claimants have further sought an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards medical and funeral expenses.

6. Respondents No.1 and 2 entered appearance and filed their statement of objections, denying the allegations regarding the age, income, and occupation of the deceased. They further contended that the accident did not occur due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car in question. In support of their case, the claimants examined two witnesses and marked 18 documents as exhibits. On the other hand, the respondents, though they did not examine any witnesses, marked 03 documents as exhibits.

7. The Tribunal, upon consideration of the evidence on record, awarded compensation of Rs.26,28,830/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. While doing so, the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.25,386/-, applied the multiplier of ‘11’ considering the age of the deceased as 54 years, and also granted compensation under other conventional heads.

8. Sri Girish S. Hulmani, learned counsel for the claimants, submits that the deceased was employed as a Physical Education Teacher and was earning a sum of Rs.29,978/- per month, as evidenced by the salary certificate issued for the month of December 2015. He further submits that the only permissible deductions from the gross salary are those towards professional tax and income tax. It is contended that the Tribunal erred in deducting amounts towards provident fund and canteen allowances, which ought not to have been excluded for the purpose of computing income.

9. The learned counsel further submits that the compensation awarded under the heads of loss of consortium, loss of