The court modified the compensation amount awarded for loss of dependency in a fatal accident, emphasizing the need for proper assessment of future prospects and rejecting claims of contributory negligence.

JUDGMENT :

VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL, J.

MFA No.103209/2019 is filed by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of compensation, whereas, MFA No. 102676/2019 is filed by the NWKRTC/Corporation challenging the judgment and award dated 15.03.2019 passed in MVC No.716/2017 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Dharwad (for short, ‘Tribunal’).

2. Brief facts leading to filing of these appeals are that, on 29.10.2017, one Imtiyaj @ Imtiyaz Ahmed was travelling to Hubli to meet his family. On the said date, the deceased boarded a bus at Dharwad and got down at Hubli Old Bus Stand. While he was attempting to exit the bus stand premises, a bus bearing Registration No. KA-49-F-1581 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed the deceased and the right-side front wheel of the bus ran over the shoulder and arms of the deceased. Due to the severe impact, he sustained grievous injuries and was immediately shifted to KIMS Hospital, Hubli, where he succumbed to the injuries. The claimants, being the legal dependants of the deceased, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking compensation.

3. The Respondent/Corporation filed its written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. It was contended that the accident did not occur due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus in question as the driver of the bus was operating it at a moderate speed while adhering to all traffic rules and regulations. It was further contended that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the incident and acted negligently, thereby contributed to the accident. The Respondent also denied the age, income, and avocation of the deceased as stated in the claim petition, and prayed for dismissal of the same.

4. The Tribunal recorded the evidence, claimant No.1 examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.10. The respondent/Corporation examined the driver of the bus as RW.1 and no documents were marked. The Tribunal on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, awarded total compensation of Rs.17,87,500/- along with interest at 9% per annum after deducting interim deposit of Rs.15,000/- paid by the respondent to the claimants. Being aggrieved, both the claimants and the Corporation are before this Court challenging the quantum of compensation.

5. Sri. Harish S.Maigur, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants submits that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month. The deceased was a mason by avocation working under various contractors & engineers and was the only earning member of the family; hence, he seeks to reassess the income of the deceased. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has awarded meager compensation under other heads and is required to be enhanced. Thus, he seeks to allow the appeal.

6. Sri. S.C.Bhuti, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation submits that the Tribunal taking note of the fact that the claimants have not produced any evidence with regard to the income of the deceased, has rightly assessed the income of the deceased. It is submitted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that the deceased who was the pedestrian was required to observe duty of care while going out from the bus stand and in the absence of such act, the Court is required to consider the aspect of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased to certain extent. It is further submitted that the award of interest at the rate of 9% per annum by the Tribunal is exorbitant and without any reason. It is also submitted that the Corporation has paid the interim deposit of Rs.15,000/-. The said