The court highlighted the necessity of including future prospects in compensation for loss of dependency, aligning with established legal precedents.

JUDGMENT :

K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the claimants directed against the judgment and award dated 13.11.2018, in MVC No.681/2014 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge & Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-VII at Shivamogga (for short ‘Tribunal’).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case before the Tribunal are that:

On 15.06.2013, at about 3.00 a.m., deceased Sathisha was working as a Mechanic and along with other employees in order to attend marriage at Shravanabelagola left Shivamogga in a Maruthi Omni Van bearing Reg.No.KA-14-N-510 at 11 p.m. and when they were proceeding near Madihalli village near Tiptur, at about 3.00 a.m., on 16.06.2013, due to rash and negligent driving of Mahesh, the van toppled on the road in a curve. Due to the said accident, the inmates of the vehicle sustained grievous injuries and Sathisha died at the spot and the driver of the Van succumbed while being shifted to hospital. The claimants are his parents and sister. Hence, claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act, seeking compensation of Rs.21,70,000/-.

4. Upon service of notice, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have appeared through their respective counsel and filed their separate statement of objections. Respondent No.1 in his statement of objections has contended that the offending Maruthi Omni Van bearing Reg.No.KA-14-N-510 was owned by his father namely M.G.Lakshman Naika. His father died on 09.02.2012 and the same was informed to M/s.Shruthi Motors as well as respondent No.2. The M/s.Shruthi Motors, the authorized agent got the said vehicle insured with the respondent No.2 on 05.02.2013 vide policy No.88273919 and was valid upto 04.02.2014. After the death of his father, respondent No.1 has renewed the insurance policy. The said offending vehicle was entrusted to deceased Mahesh by M/s.Shruthi Motors in order to attend the marriage. The inmates of the offending vehicle were the workers of M/s.Shruthi Motors and hence, contends that M/s.Shruthi Motors and respondent No.2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount. He has further contended that he has issued legal notice dated 24.01.2014 against M/s.Shruthi Motors and respondent No.2 to pay the damages caused to his vehicle and reply dated 06.02.2014 was given choosing to repudiate the claim of the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 has also filed a complaint before the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum at Shivamogga under Complaint No.468/14 but the said complaint was dismissed by the said forum holding that it does not come within the purview of Consumer Protection Act. Hence, prays to saddle the liability on M/s.Shruthi Motors and respondent No.2.

5. The respondent No.2 in its objection statement denied the averments of the claim petition and contended that the driver of the offending vehicle Mahesh was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle and hence, there is breach of policy conditions and prays to dismiss the petition.

6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed issues and recorded the evidence. The petitioner No.2 was examined as PW-1 and got marked documents at Exs.P1 to P-11. The respondent No.2 has examined one witness as RW-1 and both the respondents have got marked documents at Exs.R.1 to R.4.

7. After hearing the parties and on perusal of the documents, the Tribunal has allowed the petition in part and awarded compensation of Rs.10,12,200/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

8. Heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the material on record.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the occurrence of accident and death of said Sathisha is not in dispute. Therefore, there is no need to reconsider the same. The contention of the claimants is that the Tribunal ought to have taken not