The liability for an accident lies primarily with the driver, even if the passenger has violated rules; compensation must reflect the deceased's actual potential income.

JUDGMENT :

D. K. SINGH, J.

1. Both these appeals arise out of common judgment and award dated 26.4.2022 passed by the Court of XI & C/c XII ASCJ Small Causes and Additional MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-15) in MVC No.2082/2019.

2. The brief facts are that, on 02.01.2019 at about 5.30 p.m., the deceased Subramanya was travelling in a auto bearing registration No.KA-05-AF-1517, as a passenger from Ramanagara to Bidadi, when the auto reached near Sri Sai Condiments Tea Stop in between Kallagopahalli and Dasappanadoddi Village, Bidadi, the rider of the auto rickshaw drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the auto rickshaw to a Tipper lorry bearing registration No.KA-42-A-5814. As a result of the accident, the deceased Subramanya died on the spot. He was around 24 years old at the time of the accident.

3. The parents of the deceased filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.35,00,000/-. On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed following issues:

"(1) Whether the petitioners prove that deceased Sri. Subramanya was died in RTA arising out of accident alleged to have been taken place on 02.01.2019 at about 5.30 p.m., in front of Sri Sai Condiments Tea Shop, Kallagopahalli, Dasappanadoddi Village, Bidadi, Ramanagara, Karnataka, due to the rash and negligence driving of driver of the Auto bearing Reg.No.KA-05-AF-1517 and Tipper, bearing Reg.No.KA-42-A-5814 ?

(2) Whether the petitioners prove that, they are the dependents of the deceased ?

(3) Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation ? If so, what is quantum ?

(4) What order or award ?"

4. In response to issue No.1, the Tribunal has held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto rickshaw. The perusal of the spot panchnama would make it clear that the driver of the Tipper lorry parked the vehicle on the left side and auto rickshaw dashed the parked Tipper lorry. The deceased had died on the spot.

5. In response to issue No.2, the Tribunal has held that the claimants are the parents and they are the dependents of deceased Subramanya.

6. In response of issue No.3, the Tribunal after considering the evidence on record has considered the notional income of the deceased at Rs.11,000/- per month and calculated the loss of dependency accordingly.

7. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the deceased was Travelling with the driver sitting on the driver seat of the auto rickshaw. Whereas the auto rickshaw cannot accommodate any other person other than the driver on the front seat. It is submitted that the deceased himself also had contributed in some manner to the occurrence of the accident in as much as the driver of the auto rickshaw, was not in the position to maneuver the autorickshaw, as the deceased was sitting on the same seat where the driver was sitting.

8. He has further submitted that the Tribunal has categorically recorded the findings that the auto rickshaw was travelling on the route for which no permit was there and the auto rickshaw was plying without valid permit and thus, the auto rickshaw was plying in violation of the statutory prescription as well as against the provisions in the insurance policy.

9. It is further submitted that in view of the aforesaid, the Tribunal ought to have ordered pay and recovery but instead of ordering pay and recovery, the insurance company has been ordered to pay the compensation.

10. On the other hand, Sri A.K. Bhat, learned counsel for the appellants in C/w appeal No.7295/2025 and for the respondents in MFA No.4866/2