The court held that the personal expenses deduction should be 1/4th for five dependants and reassessed the income of the deceased to Rs.10,250/- p.m. based on prevailing norms.

JUDGMENT :

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT)

The above appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 29.10.2020 in MVC.No.138/2017 on the file of Member, MACT-VIII at Badami (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

2. The claimants are in appeal in MFA No.100510/2023 seeking enhancement of compensation, whereas the NEKRTC is in appeal in MFA.No.100186/2021 against non-consideration of negligence of the deceased rider of the motorcycle and also questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

3. The parties would be referred to as they stood before the Tribunal.

4. The claimants - wife, children and mother of the deceased Maruti Siddappa Balaganur had filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) claiming compensation for the death of Maruti Siddappa Balaganur in a road traffic accident that took place on 09.02.2017 involving motorcycle bearing No.KA-29-EC-5994 and KSRTC bus bearing No.KA- 32-F-1978. It is stated that, the deceased was aged 35 years, doing Centring work and was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- p.m.

5. On issuance of notice, the respondent/Corporation appeared and filed objection statement denying the claim petition averments and also contending that the accident occurred solely due to the negligent riding of the motorcycle by the deceased. It is denied that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the bus.

6. In support of their case, the claimants examined PW1 to PW3 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. The respondent/Corporation examined RW1 and no documents were marked on behalf of respondent.

7. The Tribunal on scrutiny of the entire material on record, awarded total compensation of Rs.23,40,400/-. While awarding the above compensation, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- p.m., deducted 1/5^th of the income towards the personal expenses of the deceased, added 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects and adopted 16 multiplier.

8. Heard the learned counsel Sri.S.C.Bhuti for the Corporation and learned counsel Sri. B.S.Sangati for the claimants. Perused the entire appeal papers including original records of the Tribunal.

9. Learned counsel for the claimants Sri.B.S.Sangati would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and submits that the income assessed by the Tribunal is also on the lower side. The Tribunal ought to have assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.10,250/- p.m., though the claimants stated that the deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- p.m. Further, learned counsel would contend that the compensation awarded on the head of loss of consortium is also on the lower side and prays for awarding proper compensation on each heads. Thus, learned counsel prays for allowing the appeal and to enhance the compensation.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent/Corporation Sri.S.C.Bhuti would contend that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the deceased rider of the motorcycle, which the Tribunal failed to consider. Learned counsel referring to the sketch at Ex.P4 submits that, the rider of the motorcycle was coming from Hubli to Vijayapura and the KSRTC bus was coming from Vijayapura to Hubli. Further, learned counsel would submit that the road was under repair and only one side of the road was available for movement. It is submitted that the motorcycle came from opposite side and hit the KSRTC bus, due to which, the right side of the bus had sustained damage. Thus, learned counsel would submit that the accident had occurred solely due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle.

11. With regard to quantum of compensation, learned counsel Sri. S.C. Bhuti would submit that there