The court determined that absence of a valid driving license alone does not establish contributory negligence and recalculated compensation based on accurate income assessment.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act - Claim for compensation - Appeal against award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Contributory negligence assessed at 30% due to deceased driving without a valid license - Income of deceased recalculated at Rs.12,500/- p.m. with a 25% increase for future prospects - Tribunal's finding on contributory negligence set aside in light of Supreme Court ruling that lack of a license does not alone constitute negligence. (Paras 9, 15, 19)

(B) Quantum of compensation - Enhanced compensation awarded based on proper assessment of loss of dependency and correct application of multiplier of 14 - Claim for loss of consortium and love and affection granted further enhancement per established jurisprudence. (Paras 20, 21)

Facts of the case:
Deceased met with an accident on 08.04.2018 due to rash driving of a Maxicab, resulting in death; claimants are the wife, children, and mother of the deceased.

Issues: Whether deceased was at fault in the accident and the appropriate compensation due to claimants.

Findings of Court:
Compensation amount recalibrated to Rs.13,47,000/-, with interest at 6% p.a.

Result: Appeal allowed in part, modifying the previous award.

Table of Content
1. initiation of appeal process. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. accident details and liability issues. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. arguments on contributory negligence. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
4. evaluation of witness reliability. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
5. legal precedent on driving without a license. (Para 15 , 16)
6. assessment of deceased's income. (Para 17 , 18)
7. calculation of compensation and just awards. (Para 19 , 20)
8. final decisions and orders. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)

JUDGMENT :

UMESH M. ADIGA, J.

This appeal is filed by the claimants against the judgment and award dated 03.02.2020 in MVC No.572/2018 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Mysuru (for short 'Tribunal'), seeking enhancement of compensation and also questioning the liability of respondent No.2.

2. Though appeal is slated for admission, with the consent of learned advocates appearing for both the sides, it is taken up for final disposal.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.

4. The brief facts of the case of both the parties before the Tribunal are as follows:

On 08.04.2018, at about 3.00 p.m., deceased Lokesh D, met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of a Maxicab bearing registration No.KA-09/C-8100, on Hunsur to K R Nagar road near Shanidevara Temple, Kalkunike, within the limits of Hunsur town. As a result of the impact, Lokesh D sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same on spot. The claimants, being his wife, children and mother, who were dependent on the income of the deceased, prayed for awarding compensation.

5. Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.1 appeared, but did not file objections to the claim petition.

6. The respondent No.2-insurer filed its written statement, denying the averments of the claim petition. It denied its liability to pay the compensation on the ground that accident occurred due to the negligence of deceased himself. With these reasons, prayed to dismissal of the claim petition.

7. On the basis of the rival contentions of the parties, the tribunal framed necessary issues, for its determination.

8. The claimants to prove their case examined two witnesses as PWs-1 and 2 and marked documents as per Exs.P1 to P15. Respondents did not lead any oral evidence, however, respondent No.2 produced two documents marked as Exs.R1 and 2.

9. The tribunal after hearing both parties held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of deceased as well as the driver of the Maxicab, and apportioned the contributory negligence in the ratio of 30:70. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 7,500/- per month, added 25% of income towards future prospects, deducted one-third towards personal expenses, applied the multiplier of '14', and awarded the following amount of compensation.

10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for both side parties.

11. Fact of accident and the death of Lokesh D in the said accident are not seriously disputed. The main contention of the appellants is that the deceased was not at all responsible for the accident, rather, the driver of the offending vehicle went to the wrong side of the road and hit the motorcycle on which the deceased was traveling. Relying on the law laid down in the case of Dr.Mahadeva Deshi and another Vs. M/s. Cholamandala M.S. General Insu. Co. Ltd., and another , 2016(1) AKR 553, Tribunal held that deceased also contributed to the accident in question since he was driving the vehicle without holding a valid driving license. On this ground, the tribunal held that deceased has contributed negligence to an extent of 30%.

12. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 contended that the tribunal on verification of the material available on record, has properly appreciated the evidence and awarded just and reasonable amount of compensation, which does not call for any interference by this court.

13. The concept of contributory negl