The court affirmed the validity of awarding compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, adjusting income and future prospects, while rejecting insurer's claims of contributory negligence and liability defenses.

JUDGMENT :

GEETHA K.B., J.

1. The insurer and claimants are in appeal questioning the judgment and award dated 29.10.2021 in M.V.C. No.1001/2017 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. Byadagi (for short’ Tribunal’). The claimants are in appeal not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded whereas the insurer is in appeal contending that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is on higher side and also challenges the liability of the insurer.

2. Parties would be referred with their ranks, as they were before the Tribunal.

3. The claimants being the parents and unmarried sisters of deceased Sridhar have filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) claiming compensation for the accidental death of son of claimant Nos.1 and 2 in a road traffic accident that had taken place on 15.03.2017 at about 17.30 hours near Karekatte on Yerekuppi-Saravand road involving the Tata Ace vehicle bearing registration No.KA-27/A-4016 and motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-27/EJ-2362. It is stated in the claim petition that the deceased has completed II PUC and ITI in Electrician course. At the time of accident, he was aged about 22 years, working at Kudremukh Iron and Ore Company Limited at Ranebennur and Mangaluru and he was getting salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. The deceased was very talented and skilled technician in his job and was having bright future in his avocation. Hence, prayed for compensation.

4. On receipt of notice, first respondent-owner of the Tata Ace appeared through his counsel and filed his detailed objection wherein he denied the entire averments made in the petition and further contended that his vehicle was validly insured with second respondent as on the date of accident and policy was in force and hence second respondent is liable to pay compensation to petitioners, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the respondents are liable to pay compensation. He further contended that the accident happened due to rash and negligent riding of motorcycle by deceased Sridhar and not due to the driving of driver of Tata Ace vehicle. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. Second respondent-insurer appeared through its counsel and filed its objection statement, wherein it denied the entire averments made in the petition and further contended that the driver of Tata Ace has willfully driven the said vehicle and was not having valid and effective driving license to drive the Light Goods vehicle as on the date of accident. Hence, without knowing the driving and without obtaining license from the licensing authority he has driven the vehicle. Hence, violated the provisions of the Act. Hence respondent-insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. It further took contention that the rider and owner of two wheeler bearing registration No.KA-27/EJ- 2362 are not made as parties to the petition and thus the claim petition is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties. Hence prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6. On behalf of claimants, first claimant was examined as PW1, apart from marking Exs.P.1 to P.43 and closed their side before the Tribunal. On behalf of respondents, respondents examined RW.1 and RW.2 apart from marking Exs.R.1 to R.8 and closed their side before the Tribunal.

7. After recording evidence of both sides and hearing arguments of both sides, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.22,30,000/- with interest at 9% per annum under following different heads:-

8. While awarding the aforesaid compensation, the Tribunal held that the monthly income of deceased at Rs.14,000/-, applied the relevant multiplier - 18 and deducted the 1/3 of his income towards his personal expenses.

9. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award of the Tribunal, the insurer as w