The court re-evaluated the notional income in a compensation claim, leading to an enhanced award based on statutory guidelines and principles established in prior judgments.

JUDGMENT :

RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR, J.

The appellants/claimants being dissatisfied by the common judgment and award dated 03.02.2020 passed in MVC No.6795/2018 by the III Additional Judge and Member, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, have preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2. The parties to this appeal are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court for convenience.

3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are as follows -

The claimants being the legal heirs of deceased Gangadhara filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh only) on the ground that, on 08.11.2018 at 8.00 p.m. the deceased Gangadhara was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA 09 HS 5556 with his friend Harish, who is the petitioner in MVC No.6796/2018 as a pillion rider slowly and cautiously. When they reached near Nettigere Gate, Kanakapura - Bengaluru Main Road, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru, at that time, the driver of a car bearing registration No.KA 51 MA 4082 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner in high speed and dashed against the motorcycle. Because of the impact, both the rider and pillion rider fell down and sustained grievous injuries. The deceased Gangadhara was shifted to Aastra hospital, Bengaluru for treatment and thereafter, after first aid treatment, he was taken to St. Johns Hospital, Bengaluru. Despite giving better treatment, he succumbed to the accidental injuries.

4. It is the case of the claimants that, they are the legal heirs of deceased Gangadhara and deceased was the only earning member in their family. Prior to the accident, deceased was hale and healthy and was aged 22 years. He was working as an electrician at the time of accident and also a class I contractor and in addition to that, he was an agriculturist. Thus, from his profession, he was earning Rs.30,000/- p.m. Because of the unexpected death of the deceased, the claimants have lost their bread earner in their family. Hence, it is prayed by the claimants to award the compensation as prayed for in their petition.

5. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.2 appeared and resisted the petition by filing detailed objection statement. It is contended that, the accident was not because of any rash and negligent driving of the alleged car in the manner alleged. It was the deceased who was rash and negligent in causing the accident. It is contended that, the liability of respondent No.2 is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, it is prayed by respondent No.2 to dismiss the petition.

6. Based upon the rival pleadings of both the parties, the learned Tribunal framed five issues.

7. To substantiate the case of the claimants, claimant No.1 entered the witness box as PW.1 and got marked 22 documents as EXs.P1 to P22 and also examined one Muniraju as PW.3. Respondent No.2 has led evidence of one D S Pradeep as RW.1 and got marked a copy of the policy. The learned Tribunal, on hearing the arguments of both sides and on evaluation of the evidence, held that, the said accident has taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver and in that accident, the deceased Gangadhara succumbed to the injuries. With regard to the award of compensation, learned Tribunal held that though it is submit