The court redefined the deceased's age for compensation calculation from 38 to 46 years and adjusted future earnings based on appropriate deductions, ultimately revising the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

JUDGMENT :

S. G. PANDIT, J.

1. Both the claimants and the insurer are in appeal questioning the judgment and award dated 15.11.2021 passed in M.V.C. No.250/2019 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.V and First Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ballari (for short, ‘the 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 the higher side.

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

3. The claimants - wife, daughters, son and mother of deceased Ankay Gopi @ R.Gopi, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the accidental death of Ankay Gopi @ R.Gopi, in a road traffic accident that took place on 17.01.2019 involving autorickshaw bearing registration No.AP-03/TJ-0343 and a bus bearing registration No.AP-02/TC-3969. It is stated that the deceased was owning an autorickshaw and he himself was driving the same from which he used to earn a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. It is also stated that, in terms of Post- mortem Report, the deceased was aged 38 years. The respondent no.3 insurer appeared in pursuance to the notice issued by the Tribunal and filed its objection, whereas respondents No.1 and 2 did not appear and were placed ex parte.

4. The insurer contended that the driver of the offending vehicle had not possessed a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle. Further, it is also contended that there is violation of terms and conditions of policy and insurer is not liable to pay the compensation.

5. Before the Tribunal, wife of the deceased examined herself as PW1 apart from marking the documents as Exs.P1 to P21. Respondents marked Insurance Policy as Ex.R1. The Tribunal based on the material on record, awarded total compensation of Rs.29,26,835/- on the following heads:

6. While awarding the above compensation, the Tribunal assessed monthly notional income of the deceased at Rs.13,250/-, added 40% of the said income towards future prospects, deducted 1/5^th towards personal expenses of the deceased, and adopted a multiplier of 15 taking the age of the deceased as 38 years. Aggrieved by the judgment and award of the Tribunal, the insurer as well as the claimants are before this Court.

7. Heard the learned counsel Sri Manjunath G. Patil for the appellant as well as learned counsel Sri S.S. Koliwad for respondent-insurance Company and perused the appeal papers along with original records.

8. The learned counsel for the claimants would submit that the deceased was owning an auto-rickshaw and he was also possessing a driving licence. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have assessed the income independently and could not have taken notional income of Rs.13,250/-. Learned counsel would submit that when the deceased owned the auto-rickshaw and when he was self driving the auto-rickshaw, he would have earned more than Rs.13,250/- and hence, he prays for reassessment of the income of the deceased. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal has rightly taken the age of the deceased at 38 years and applied the multiplier of 15 taking note of Ex.P3 PM report. Learned counsel further submits that PM report clearly indicates the age of the deceased as 38 years.

9. Per contra, Sri S.S. Koliwad, learned counsel for respondent Insurance Company would submit that there are five dependents and the proper multiplier would be ¼ and not 1/5^th as adopted by the Tribunal. Further, le