The assessment of compensation under Motor Vehicles Act must reflect actual income potential, including losses from dependency and consortium, as established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

VENKATESH NAIK T., J,

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondents.

MFA No.1902/2022 is filed by the appellants(wife and daughter of deceased Harish S.N.), MFA No.1461/2021 is filed by the Insurance company and MFA No.1716/2022 is filed by the appellants(parents of deceased Harish S.N.) challenging the judgment and award dated 15.12.2020 passed in MVC No.237/2019 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Challakere, whereby, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.23,77,000/-.

-

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case of the claimants before the Tribunal is that on 23.12.2018, one Sri. Harish S.N., alongwith claimants Nos.1 and 2 was driving Ashoka Leyland vehicle bearing registration No.KA-16-C-7645 from Chitradurga to Hiriyur, at about 8.00 a.m. and when he came near Anesidri gate, on N.H.4, Hiriyur Taluk, at that time, the driver of lorry bearing registration No.KA-05-AE-5164 which was moving in front of the said Ashoka Leyland vehicle, all of a sudden, took his lorry rashly and negligently towards right side of the road, resulting in back portion of the said lorry dashing to Ashoka Leyland vehicle, as a result of which, Harish sustained multiple injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Hence, the claimants filed a claim petition under section 166 of M.V. Act on the ground that claimant No.1 is the wife, claimant No.2 being minor daughter of deceased Harish (in MFA No.1902/2022) and respondent Nos.4 and 5 therein being the parents of deceased Harish (claimant No.1 is father and claimant No.2-mother(in MFA No.1716/2022) on account of death of Harish sought for enhancement of compensation.

-

4. Learned counsel for the claimants contended that the Tribunal committed an error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- p.m., which is on the lower side, inasmuch as, deceased was a truck driver and earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- p.m. Thus, he sought to allow the appeal.

5. Per-contra, learned counsel for Insurance company contended that the driver of the lorry was not possessing valid driving licence to drive the vehicle as on the date of the accident and therefore, the Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. Learned counsel further contended that the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation under each heads. The accident was due to negligent driving of the lorry and there is contributory negligence by the truck driver. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the appeal filed by the claimants and to allow the appeal filed by the Insurance company.

6. Having heard learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the appeal papers including the original records of the Tribunal, the following points that would arise for our consideration in these appeals are as under:-

1. Whether the Insurance Company has made out sufficient grounds for contributing negligence on the part of deceased and hence, the Tribunal is not right in saddling entire liability on the Insurer of the vehicle?

-

2. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement?

7. We have perused the contentions raised by learned counsel for Insurance company.

8. Insofar as contributory negligence is concerned, from the perusal of the evidence of PW.1 and the contents of the charge sheet, it appears that the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.KA-05-AE-5164 was driving the lorry as on the date of the accident. It is the contention of the Insurance company that the driver of the lorry was no