The court ruled that in the absence of documented income, the notional income must be assessed according to established guidelines, affecting compensation calculations.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V.Act, 1988” for short) by the petitioners, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the judgment and award dated 13.06.2016, passed in MVC No.314/2015 by the learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal-II, Ballari (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’ for short).

2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of these appeals, are as follows:

On 24.12.2014, at about 5.00 p.m., the deceased Shivarama Reddy was proceeding on the bicycle from his village towards Rampur for getting the waste water. When he was proceeding near Rampura bus stand, the driver of the lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-01/AC-3458 came from Challakere side, in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed to the bicycle. Due to the said impact, the deceased fell and sustained grievous injuries. During treatment, he succumbed to the injuries. Thus, the legal representatives of the deceased Shivarama Reddy filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act seeking compensation.

3. The driver of the lorry filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the he was possessing a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident, and prays to dismiss the claim petition against the driver of the offending vehicle.

4. The owner of the offending vehicle filed the statemen of objections denying the claim petition averments. It is contended that as of the date of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with the insurance company and the policy was in effect. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against him.

5. The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance Company.

6. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties framed the relevant issues.

7. To substantiate their case, petitioner No.1 was examined as P.W.1, and marked 17 documents as Exs.P1 to P17. Conversely, the respondents before the Tribunal did not lead any oral evidence, however, marked one document as Ex.R1 with consent, i.e., the Insurance Policy. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence allowed the claim petition in part, and awarded a compensation of Rs.8,80,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till its realisation. It is held that respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the entire compensation to the petitioners. The claim petition against petitioner No.2 was dismissed. The petitioners, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal.

8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, he prays to allow the appeal.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company supports the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. He submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper, and prays to dismiss the appeal.

11. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The point that would arise for consideration is regarding the quantum of compensation.

Reg