Court clarified the need for accurate income assessment and appropriate deductions in compensation for wrongful death claims under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

VENKATESH NAIK T, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties in both the appeals.

2. MFA No.9122/2017 is filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 11.08.2017 passed in MVC No.132/2016 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short, 'Tribunal') whereas, MFA No.757/2018 is filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation challenging the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal on the ground of quantum of compensation.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

4. Brief facts of the case are as under:

The claimants are the wife and children of the deceased Sannappa. On 08.01.2016 at about 11.00 p.m., the deceased and one Krishna were riding pillion on a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-11/EB-3043 rode by one Abhishek and when the said motorcycle reached the KSRTC Bus Stand, Maddur Town on Mysuru-Bengaluru Road, a KSRTC bus bearing Registration No.KA-09/F-5077 came from Mysuru side in a very rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against the motorcycle causing the accident as a result of which, all the three persons in the motorcycle fell down and the motorcycle was damaged. The deceased Sannappa sustained fatal injuries to head and other parts of the body and became unconscious. The said Krishna and Abhishek also sustained injuries. Immediately after the accident, the deceased Sannappa was taken to the General Hospital, Maddur and was then shifted to the District Hospital, Mandya. But, on the way near to the hospital, he succumbed to the injuries. Hence, the claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal seeking compensation.

5. In order to prove their case, the claimants examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 and got marked the documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.14 whereas, the Corporation examined R.W.1 and R.W.2 and got marked the documents as per Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2.

6. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, partly allowed the claim petition awarding a total compensation of Rs.11,64,700/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till its realization and directed the Corporation to deposit the award amount within two months from the date of the judgment.

7. Sri Raja L, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants in MFA No.9122/2017 contended that  the Tribunal, without considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, has taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,825/- per month which is on lower side. In fact, the deceased was an agriculturist, sericulturist and was also doing milk vending business prior to the accident. He was earning Rs.30,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has not considered this aspect. Hence, he prayed to allow the appeal.

8. Sri F.S. Dabali, learned counsel for the appellant/Corporation in MFA No.757/2018 vehemently contended that the Tribunal has assessed the age of the deceased at 50 years based on the postmortem report. Further, the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 13 and the same has to be reduced to 9. Further, though there are four claimants in the claim petition, in fact, claimant No.4 is a married daughter and she is not dependent on the income of the deceased. Hence, 1/3^rd of the income of the deceased has to be deducted towards his personal expenses while assessing the loss of dependency. Further, the Tribunal has wrongly taken into consideration the future prospects at 30%. In view of the prima facie case, for the age gro