The court recalibrated compensation based on accurate age assessment and adherence to established principles regarding dependency and future prospects.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the insurance company, dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Yelburga (hereinafter the ‘Tribunal’) in MVC No. 93/2018, vide judgment and award dated 09/06/2023.

2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

3. The claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , claiming compensation of ₹50,00,000/- on the ground that on 23/03/2017, the deceased Chandrasekhar Yeradal, while riding a motorcycle bearing Registration No. KA -37/EA- 3576 from Yelburga to Kukanoor road, met with an accident and succumbed to the injuries sustained by him, on the spot. It is contended that the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. KA-26/X- 8060, came from the opposite direction at a high speed and collided with the motorcycle on which the deceased-Chandrashekhar was riding. A criminal case was registered in Crime No. 24/2017 in Yelburga Police Station. The claimants, being the legal representatives of the deceased, i.e., the wife, minor children and the mother of the deceased, filed a claim petition, on the ground that they lost their only bread earner of the family, Chandrasekhar, in the road traffic accident. Hence, pray to allow the claim petition.

4. Respondents No.1 and 2- the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle, jointly filed a statement of objections, denying the claim petition averments. It is contended that the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid and effective driving license, the said vehicle was insured with Respondent No. 3 and the insurance policy was also in effect, at the time of the accident. Hence, on these grounds, they pray to dismiss the claim petition against Respondents No.1 and 2.

5. Respondent No.3- the insurance company filed a statement of objections denying the claim petition averments. It is admitted that the offending vehicle is insured with their company; however, the owner breached the terms of the insurance policy. It is contended that the driver of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. KA-26/X-8060 did not possess a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident. Thus, there is violation of the conditions. Further it is contended that the accident occurred due to the self negligence of the deceased, as such, Respondent No.3 has no liability to pay the compensation as claimed. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against Respondent No.3- the insurance company.

6. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues.

7. The claimants, to prove the claim petition averments, examined claimant No.1 as PW-1, examined one witness as PW-2 and marked 23 documents as Exs.P1 to P23. In rebuttal, Respondent No.3 examined one of its officials as RW-1, CPI of Yalburga Circle was examined as RW-2 and 6 documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R6.

8. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part and held that the claimants are entitled for the compensation of ₹20,94,340/- with an interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. Respondent No.3 - the insurance company was held liable to pay the compensation along with interest, to the claimants and ordered to deposit the same within 30 days from the date of the order.

9. Respondent No.3- the insurance company, aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, filed this miscellaneous first appeal, challenging the quantum of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel f