Compensation claims require evident substantiation of income and employment status to justify future prospects under motor accident claims; liability confirmed against insurance when deceased engaged in transportation.

JUDGMENT :

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.

1. The present appeals have been filed impugning the Judgment and Award Dated 19.01.2018 in MVC No.758/2015 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Mysuru [hereinafter referred as “the Impugned Judgment”]. By the Impugned Judgment, the claimants have been awarded the compensation in the sum of Rs.17,72,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till its realisation.

2. The challenge in MFA No.5857/2018 is by the Insurance Company. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company that despite the fact that the deceased was travelling in a goods vehicle as an unauthorised passenger, the Tribunal has not apportioned the liability amount towards contributory negligence against the deceased. While the challenge in MFA No.7564/2018 is on a limited ground. It is contended by the claimants that no amount has been awarded towards future prospects.

3. Briefly, the facts are, on 18.06.2014 at about 5.30 a.m. when two persons were travelling in a goods Autorickshaw with cattle in the vehicle and due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Autorickshaw, the Autorickshaw turned turtle and the deceased succumbed to his injuries subsequently on 02.09.2014. The claimants are the legal representatives of deceased M.K.Harish.

3.1. It is the case of the claimants that deceased was the only earning member of the family and aged 29 years doing masonry work and earning Rs.20,000/- per month.

3.2. The Insurance Company, on the other hand, has contended that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger travelling in a goods vehicle and that the driver of the vehicle had no valid licence and hence the Insurance Company was not liable pay compensation.

4. Based on the pleadings, the following issues are framed:

“[1] Whether the petitioners prove that the deceased Shri M.K.Harish, died in a road traffic accident occurred on 18/06/2014, at about 5.30 a.m., due to the actionable negligence of the driver of the vehicle bearing No.KA-453761?

[2] Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation? If so, at what quantum, from whom and what proportion?

[3] What Order or relief?”

5. The learned Tribunal assessed the compensation by taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month on the basis of the notional income and awarded compensation for loss of financial dependency calculated for the loss of love and affection, loss of consortium, loss of estate, funeral expenses as well as medical expenses and after giving 1/4^th deduction for personal expenses, awarded the compensation under the following heads:

6. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the Tribunal has held that admittedly claimants were not able to place anything on record to show the income of the deceased other than stating that deceased was the sole bread winner of the family and working as a mason.

7. In the statement of claim, the claimants have set out that deceased was a mason, he was aged about 29 years doing masonry work and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. It is further stated that the deceased was the only earning member of his family. The relevant extract of the statement of claim is set out below:

“Prior to the accident the deceased was hale and healthy, aged about 29 years and doing mason work and earning Rs.20,000/- p.m., he was the only earning member of this family. After his death, the petitioners are struggling very hard for their livelihood.”

8. The learned Tribunal has while calculating the loss of financial dependency, given a finding that the Claimants have failed to establish that deceased was self employed or that he had a fi