The court confirmed compensation must reflect future income prospects and clarified the liability of insurers is not negated by permit violations, emphasizing the necessity for accurate negligence apportionment.

JUDGMENT :

C M Joshi, J.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. Even though the appeal is slated for admission, by consent of both sides, it is taken up for final disposal.

3. The petitioner, who is the appellant before this Court was the wife of one Somasekhar, who died in the road traffic accident. It is the case of the appellant that on 27.02.2010 at about 8.00 p.m., the deceased Somasekhar was an inmate of auto rickshaw bearing No.KA-42-4195 along with other passengers. On Bengaluru-Mysore Road, Doddamallur near Saibaba Mandir side, Channapattana, a lorry bearing No.KA-07-2844 stopped suddenly without indication and as a result, the driver of the auto rickshaw could not control his vehicle and dashed to the lorry from behind. As a result, the deceased Somasekhar and other passengers sustained grievous injuries and the deceased was immediately taken to the Government Hospital, Channapattana and later while he was being shifted to Bengaluru, he succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter, the petitioner and the parents of the deceased performed the last rituals of the deceased. The petitioner contends that the accident was due to the negligence of both the drivers and that the deceased was working in a juice shop, earning Rs.7,174/- p.m. as wages and the petitioner has lost her husband at young age and as such, she is entitled for compensation.

4. On issuance of notice, respondent Nos.1 and 3 who are the owners of the lorry and the auto rickshaw did not appear and therefore, they were placed ex-parte.

5. Respondent No.2, who is the insurer of the lorry and respondent No.4, who is the insurer of the auto rickshaw appeared and resisted the petition. They arrested that the drivers of their vehicles were not negligent and inter alia contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable. Respondent No.4, who is the insurer of auto rickshaw contended that the driver of auto rickshaw had allowed more than the permitted number of passengers in the said auto rickshaw. Therefore, there is violation of terms and conditions of the permit and also the policy. Inter alia both the insurance companies denied that the drivers had violated the conditions of the policy and the liability be fastened upon the owners of the vehicle.

6. On the basis of the above contentions, the Tribunal framed appropriate issues.

7. Though the parents of the deceased were arrayed as respondent Nos.5 and 6, both of them died during the pendency of the petition before the Tribunal.

8. The petitioner was examined as PW.1, one witness examined as PW.2 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P16. The official of respondent No.4- Insurance Company was examined as RW.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.R1 to R3.

9. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,78,056/- under the following heads:

10. It also held that the negligence on the part of the auto rickshaw driver was to the extent of 60% and that of lorry driver was 40%. However, there being violation of the permit, it observed that the insurer of the auto rickshaw is to be absolved from paying compensation and fastened the liability on the owner of the auto rickshaw i.e., respondent No.3. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation amount, the peti