The court affirmed that enhancements in compensation must consider notional income, future prospects, and reasonable expenses, modifying the existing award in light of established judicial principles.

JUDGMENT :

VENKATESH NAIK T., J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and learned counsel for respondent-Insurance company.

These appeals are filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 24.10.2017 passed in MVC No.2422/2016 and MVC No.5157/2016 by learned XXII Addl. Small Causes Judge and XX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate & M.A.C.T., Bengaluru (for short 'Tribunal'), whereby, the Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs.16,75,000/- (in MVC No.2422/2016) and Rs.15,03,000 (MVC No.5157/2016) respectively.

Since, both the appeals are arising out of common judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, they are disposed of by common judgment.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the claimant's case before the Tribunal are as under:-

On 18.02.2016, at about 7.00 a.m., the deceased Ganesh A, was riding his motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-05-HB-2207 alongwith his friend deceased Girish as a pillion rider on Mysore-Mahanandawadi main road from Mysore and proceeding towards H.D. Kote slowly, cautiously by observing all traffic norms, and when he came near Madapura village, at that time, all of a sudden, a lorry bearing registration No.KA-21-A-0427 driven by its driver with high speed in a rash and negligent manner without observing the traffic norms, lost control over the vehicle and came on a wrong lane and dashed against the motor cycle of the Ganesh from opposite direction. Due to the impact, Ganesh and Girish fell down on the road and sustained grievous head injuries and both of them succumbed to the injuries on the spot. This led to registration of FIR and investigation. In this regard, the claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988, before the Tribunal.

4. Learned counsel Sri Gurudeva Prasad. K.T. appearing for the claimants in MFA No.3044/2018 contended that prior to the accident, deceased Girish was aged about 19 years and was working as a Mechanic at M/s. Bosch Service Station, Yelachenahalli, and was earning Rs.15,000/- p.m., But the Tribunal, considered the notional income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- p.m., which is on the lower side. Further, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the conventional head is also on the lower side. The Tribunal has not granted future prospects which is contrary to the ratio laid down in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others , (2018) 18 SCC 130 and National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others , AIR 2017 SC 5157 . Hence, learned counsel prayed to allow the appeal.

5. Per contra, Sri C.R. Ravishankar, and Sri. S.V. Hedge Mulkhand, learned counsel appearing for respondents- Insurance company supported the impugned judgment and awarded of the Tribunal and submits that considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded just and reasonable compensation under each heads, which does not call for any interference of this Court. Learned counsel further contended that the Tribunal awarded interest at 8% which is high and exorbitant and hence, it has to be reduced to 6%. Thus, they prayed for dismissal of the appeals.

6. Having heard learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the appeal memo including the original records and judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the following point would arise for our consideration in these appeals:-

"Whether the quan