The court clarified the standards for assessing compensation, emphasizing accurate income determination and appropriate deductions for dependents under statutory guidelines.

JUDGMENT :

VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, J.

1. M.F.A. No. 102389/2024 is preferred by the appellants-claimants and M.F.A. No. 104375/2023 is preferred by the insurer, both challenging the judgment and award dated 20.02.2023 in M.V.C. No. 1155/2019 by the learned VI Addl. District & Sessions Judge & Addl. M.A.C.T, Belagavi.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, on 11.06.2019 one Sri Prakash Maruti Narale (deceased) was proceeding towards his sister’s farm house at Kavate Mahankal on his motorcycle bearing No. MH-10-AU-8916 with another person Sri Dharmanand Ganamale. When they were plying on Kavate Mahankal to Jath Road, the driver of Maruti Wagonr bearing No. MH-10-AN-6360 (offending vehicle) came at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle. Due to the accident, Prakash sustained fatal injuries and Dharmanand Ganamale also sustained injuries. Prakash succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment. The claimants thus filed claim petition seeking compensation.

3. In response, the respondents entered appearance and filed their respective statement of objections. Respondent No.1 has admitted that he is the owner of the offending car, however denied averments of the claim petition. Respondent No.2-insurer contended that liability of the insurer is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy and provision of the Act. It contended that driver of car had no driving licence and even the rider of the motorcycle had no driving licence. The rider was also driving without wearing a helmet and without following traffic rules and regulations. The location of the accident, residence of petitioners and respondents and the branch issuing the insurance policy are all situated in the State of Maharashtra. Hence, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

4. On the basis of rival contentions, the Tribunal framed necessary issues and proceeded for trial. Wife of the deceased was examined as PW1 and got marked documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.18. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence is led, however copy of the insurance policy is marked as Ex.R.1.

5. The Tribunal after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence awarded compensation of Rs.43,34,000/- by considering the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.23,000/-, adding 25% of it towards future prospects, applying multiplier of ‘14’ and deduction of 1/5^th towards personal expenditure of deceased.

6. Sri Bahubali Kanabaragi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-claimants submits that the Tribunal has committed grave error in assessing the income of the deceased. The deceased was working as a Fitter in the Factory and drawing salary of Rs.24,000/- per month. In addition to that, he was earning income from agricultural activity and due to his untimely death, income of the family has been reduced. Hence he sought to re-assess the income. It is also submitted that the amount of compensation awarded towards other heads are also on the lower side. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal by enhancing the compensation.

7. Per contra, Sri Madhukeshwar Deshpande, learned counsel for the insurer submits that the Tribunal without any justifiable reason has added Rs.2,000/- to the income of the deceased stating that it is the income which has been lost from agricultural activity. It is submitted that the agricultural activity continued to remain even after the death of Prakash. Hence, he seeks to re-assess the income. Further it is submitted that the Tribunal has erred in applying the deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased at 1/5^th instead of 1/4^th as the claimants are the wife, children and parents, who are five in number.

8. It is also submitted that the award of compensation towards loss of consortium is also on the higher sid