The insurer of the tractor is liable for compensation despite the trailer's unregistered status; future prospects must be included in income assessment for dependency compensation.

JUDGMENT :

VENKATESH NAIK T., J.

MFA No.7305/2019 is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 15.04.2019 passed in MVC No.4323/2016 by learned Addl. Small Causes Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-13) (for short, 'Tribunal'), whereby, the Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs.25,32,160/- to the claimants, whereas, MFA.Crob.No.81/2021 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.

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 03.03.2016, at about 8.00 p.m., one Rajappa T.K. (herein after referred to as 'deceased'), his brother Ramesh and Ganesh were making haystack at their land at Tharabahalli village. At this time, the tractor-trailer bearing registration No.KA 53 T 986 and No.KA 53 T 987 brought a load of hay(dry grass) from other land to the land of the deceased and the driver of the said tractor-trailer in order to unload the said hay, lifted the trailer of the said tractor upwards and drove the said tractor-trailer in reverse direction at high speed and in a negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. The wheel of the said trailer went upon the said hay stack. As a result, the trailer got turtled and fell on the deceased and due to the impact, deceased sustained grievous injuries and immediately, he was shifted to MVJ hospital, Hosakote, wherein he was declared brought dead. In this regard, the claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988, before the Tribunal.

Claimant No.1 is the wife, claimant Nos.2 to 4 are the minor children and claimant No.5 is the mother of deceased.

4. Learned counsel Sri Pradeep B, appearing for the Insurance company in MFA No.7305/2019 vehemently contended that the Tribunal has granted high and exorbitant compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal ought to have seen that as per the charge sheet filed by the police authority, the driver of the tractor-trailer has no license to drive the class of vehicles. Further, the accident occurred due to the use of trailer and as on the date of the accident, the insurance policy of the tractor was in force, however, the insurance policy was not in force in respect of trailer. Therefore, the appellant-Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. Infact, the entire liability has to be fastened on the owner of the offending vehicle. Further, the Tribunal ought to have seen that the claimants have not proved the income of the deceased with cogent evidence and hence in the absence of proper proof, the income considered by MACT at Rs.16,890/- p.m. is highly excessive and liable to be scaled down. Thus, learned counsel prayed to allow the appeal.

5. Per contra, learned counsel Sri Gopalkrishna N. appearing for the claimants contended that the Tribunal was not justified in not granting any amount towards 'future prospects' to the assessed income of the deceased for computing dependency. Further, the Tribunal ought to have awarded more compensation under the conventional heads. Thus, he prayed to allow the cross objection appeal.

6. Having heard learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the following points would arise for our consideration in the appeal:-

1. "Whether the appellant-Insurance company has proved that the Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation in view of non-possessing insurance policy to the trailer as on the date of the accident, as contended by the Insurance company?

2. Wheth