Compensation under Motor Vehicles Act requires proper assessment of income, application of future prospect increases, and accurate deductions based on dependents' status.

JUDGMENT :

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

Though this appeal is listed for orders, it is taken up for final disposal, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties.

2. The claimants are before this Court praying for enhancement of compensation, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under judgment and award dated 09.10.2017 passed in MVC No.493/2016 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge and Member, MACT-VI, Kudligi, For short, ‘Tribunal’

3. The claimants, who are the wife and children of the deceased Mallik Sab, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the accidental death of deceased Mallik Sab, that occurred on 18.11.2015 involving Lorry bearing registration No.KA-16/B- 2143 and Mahindra Bolero bearing registration No.KA-35/M- 6133. It is stated that the deceased was aged 54 years as on the date of accident and he was working as a Manager in Nasrulla Poultry Farm at Challikere, earning Rs.12,000/- per month.

4. On issuance of notice, respondents No.3 & 6-Insurance Companies appeared through their learned counsel, but only Respondent No.6-Insurance Company filed its statement of objections denying the allegations made in the claim petition. It was contended that due to negligent driving of driver of offending lorry, the accident took place. It further contended that the claimants are not dependents of the deceased Mallik Sab. Thus, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. Before the Tribunal, 1^st claimant-wife of the deceased examined herself as PW1 apart from marking the documents as Exs.P1 to P8. Respondent No.6-Insurer examined its legal officer as RW1 and got marked two documents as Exs.R1 & R2. The Tribunal based on the material evidence on record awarded total compensation of Rs.4,46,000/- with interest at 6% per annum on the following heads:

6. While awarding the above compensation, Tribunal assessed income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month, deducted 50% towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and applied multiplier of 11. The claimants not being satisfied with quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal are before this Court praying for enhancement of compensation.

7. Heard Sri. M. Amaregouda, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants; Sri.Nagaraj C Kolloori, learned counsel for the respondent No.3-Insurer and Sri.Subhash J Baddi, learned counsel for respondent No.6-Insurer and perused the appeal papers.

8. Sri.M. Amaregouda, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants would submit that income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.6,000/- per month is on the lower side, inasmuch as deceased was working as Manager in Nasrulla Poultry Farm and earning Rs.12,000/- per month. He further submitted that in the light of decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others, AIR 2017 SC 5157 , the claimants would be entitled to an addition of 10% of the assessed income towards future prospects. It is his submission that the Tribunal committed a grave error in deducting 50% of the assessed income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and it ought to have deducted 1/3^rd of the assessed income. He submitted that as per decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants would be entitled to Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses including 10% escalation. Thus, he prays for allowing the appeal.

9. Per contra, Sri.Nagaraj