Court emphasized the necessity of considering all aspects of income and allowances for determining compensation, considering future prospects based on permanent employment status.

JUDGMENT :

K.V. ARAVIND, J.

1. These appeals by the claimants and the insurer are filed being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 02.11.2023 in MVC No.1987/2019 passed by the MACT, Bengaluru City.

2. MFA No.1567/2024 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation, while MFA No.498/2024 is filed by the insurer disputing liability.

3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (for short 'M.V. Act') seeking compensation of Rs.3.00 crore for the death of Santhosh Kumar Singh in a road traffic accident. It is averred in the claim petition that on 29.01.2019, at about 7:30 a.m., Santhosh Kumar Singh was riding his Honda Activa bearing registration No.KA-01-JA-0188 on HCL Company Road near Gyan Space Company, Phase-I, Electronic City, when the driver of a Water Tanker bearing registration No.KA-51-AB-8523, coming from East to West at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner without adhering to traffic rules, dashed against the Honda Activa. Due to the impact, Santhosh Kumar Singh sustained grievous injuries and, though he was shifted to Sparsh Hospital, he succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital.

4. It is pleaded that the claimants spent a sum of Rs.2.00 lakh towards transportation of the dead body and funeral expenses. It is stated that the deceased was working as a Technical Lead at HCL Technologies Limited and was earning Rs.1,37,350/- per month. It is further alleged that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the water tanker by it's driver, and that respondent No.1, being the insurer of the offending water tanker, is liable to pay the compensation.

5. Upon service of notice, respondent No.2 remained absent and was consequently placed ex parte. Respondent No.1 appeared and filed objection statement, wherein the age, avocation, and income of the deceased were denied. Furthermore, respondent No.1 denied that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and contended that the accident was caused by the negligence of the deceased, who was riding his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, without a valid driving license and without wearing a head guard.

6. The claimants examined three witnesses and got 33 documents marked. The respondents examined RW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the water tanker, and that the vehicle was covered under the insurance policy. Accordingly, respondent No.1 was found liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal noted Rs.53,326/- as the monthly salary of the deceased, after deducting applicable taxes. However, considered Rs.40,000/- per month for the purpose of assessment of compensation. In addition to compensation under other notional heads such as consortium, loss of love and affection, loss of estate, funeral, and transportation expenses, the Tribunal determined the total compensation at Rs.81,89,000/- with simple interest at 6% per annum. The Tribunal further directed respondent No.1, the insurer, to deposit the awarded amount.

7. Sri. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the insurer, submits that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. He contends that an FIR was registered against the driver of the water tanker based on a complaint of a person, who was not an eyewitness. It is further submitted that the driver of