The inability to provide evidence for actual income necessitates the adoption of notional income as per statutory guidelines for calculating compensation in fatal accidents.

JUDGMENT :

S.G. PANDIT, J.

1. The appellants/claimants - mother, sisters and brother of the deceased-Ramesh are in appeal not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 13.02.2023 in M.V.C. No.220/2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and ACJM at Karkala, Udupi District, Tribunal, with a prayer for enhancement of compensation.

2. The accident that took place on 13.10.2020 involving Honda Activa two wheeler bearing No.KA-20-EK-4163 and the accidental death of Ramesh are not in dispute in this appeal.

3. The claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, M.V. Act, claiming compensation for the accidental death of Ramesh in a road traffic accident, on the ground that they were totally dependent on him. It is stated that he was aged 26 years as on the date of accident and was earning a sum of Rs. 30,000/- per month by doing coolie work. Respondent No.2-Insurer filed objections denying the entire claim petition averments however, admitted the Policy. Further contented that the rider of two wheeler was not holding a valid driving license at the time of accident. Claimant No.1-mother of the deceased examined herself as PW.1 apart from marking Exs.P1 to P22 documents, whereas respondent No.2 examined RW.1 and RW.2 and marked Exs.R.1 and R.2 and also Exs.C.1 and C.2 documents were marked.

4. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the material on record, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 16,61,010/- on the following heads:

4.1 While awarding the above compensation, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 8,000/- per month, added 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects, deducted 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased and applied '17' multiplier as the deceased was 26 years.

5. Heard Ms. Payal Dechamma C.V., learned counsel for Sri Pavana Chandra Shetty.H., learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Janardhan Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the entire material on record.

6. The only ground urged for enhancement of compensation is that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 8,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the Tribunal ought to have assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 14,500/- per month in terms of the notional income chart of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for the accident of the year 2020. Learned counsel thus prays for reassessment of the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 14,500/- as against Rs. 8,000/- per month assessed by the Tribunal.

7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that there is no material placed on record to establish the income of the deceased and the Tribunal is justified in assessing the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 8,000/- per month. Further it is submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

8. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the entire material on record, the only point that falls for consideration is as to "whether the claimants would be entitled for enhanced compensation?"

8.1 The answer to the above point would be in the 'affirmative' for the following reasons:

9. As stated above, the accident and the accidental death