The court affirmed that compensation should account for future prospects with a 50% addition for a permanent employee and rejected claims of contributory negligence due to insufficient evidence.

JUDGMENT :

S.G. PANDIT, J.

1. Both the claimants and insurer are in appeal against the judgment and award dated 02.07.2020, in MVC No.329/2017, on the file of Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Koppal.

2. The claimants are in appeal claiming enhancement of compensation not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, whereas the insurer is in appeal against the non consideration of contributory negligence as well as on the ground of quantum of compensation.

3. The claimants-wife and children of deceased Basappa filed claim petition under section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the accidental death of said Basappa Bailakur, in a road traffic accident that took place on 09.09.2016, involving motorcycle bearing registration No.CKW-5376 and Canter lorry bearing registration No.KA-03/AD-1059.

4. It is stated that the deceased was working as Driver cum Conductor in Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC) and was earning a salary of Rs.20,011/- as on the date of accident. Further, it is stated that the deceased was aged about 32 years.

5. On issuance of notice, respondents No.1 and 2 did not appear before the Tribunal, respondent No.3 appeared and filed its written statement.

6. Respondent No.3 in its statement denied the claim petition averments and contended that the accident occurred solely due to the negligent riding of the motorcycle by the deceased. It is also contended that the driver of the lorry had no valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident. As there is violation of conditions of policy, it is prayed for dismissal of the claim petition against the insurer.

7. In support of the claim, the claimants examined PW.1 and PW.2 apart from marking Ex.P.1 to P.21, whereas, respondent insurance company examined RW.1 and got marked Ex.R.1 and R.2 documents.

8. The Tribunal on assessing the material on record, awarded compensation of Rs.41,52,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. While awarding compensation, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.20,011/- and added 40% of the assessed income towards loss of future prospects and deducted 1/4^th of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased and adopted the multiplier of 16.

9. Heard learned counsel Sri S.H.Mittalkod, for the appellants/claimants and learned counsel Sri G.N.Raichur, for the respondent insurer and perused the entire appeal papers including the Tribunal records.

10. Learned counsel Sri.G.N.Raichur for insurer would contend that the Tribunal failed to consider the contributory negligence of the rider of the motorcycle. Further, learned counsel by inviting attention of this Court to Ex.P5 – spot sketch and Ex.P7-MVI report would submit that the sketch would indicate that the motorcycle had come and hit the Canter Lorry from behind. However, it is the case of the claimants that the Canter Lorry had hit the motorcycle from hind side. Therefore, he submits that the version of the claimants is different from the actual spot sketch. Further, learned counsel also submits that Ex.P7– MVI report would indicate that the headlight of the motorcycle is damaged, which would indicate that the motorcycle had hit the Canter Lorry from behind. Therefore, he submits that the accident had taken place solely due to the negligent riding of the motorcycle by the deceased.

11. Further, learned counsel Sri.G.N.Raichur with regard to quantum of compensation would submit that the Tribunal failed to properly assess the income of the decea