The court established that notional income for compensation should reflect prevailing rates, leading to an enhancement of total compensation awarded.

The present appeal is filed by the claimants under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned XVI Additional Judge and MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (hereinafter for brevity referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), in its judgment and award dated 10.12.2019 in M.V.C.No.7007 of 2018.

2. Summary of the case of the claimants before the Tribunal was that claimants No.1 and 2 are respectively the mother and father of the alleged deceased Harish. On the date 10.10.2018 at about 5.00 p.m. when the said Harish along with other two persons while moving near 2nd gate of APMC market yard for daily work, a motor vehicle Lorry bearing registration No.MP-06-HC-1985 being driven by its driver at high speed, in rash and negligent manner dashed to Harish from his back side. Due to the said road traffic accident he sustained multiple grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Chintamani and from there to R.L. Jalappa Hospital, Kolar. However the injured Harish (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the 'deceased'), succumbed to the injuries.

Claimants further contended that they have spent a sum of `2,00,000/- for funeral and travel expenses. The deceased was the sole bread earner in the family upon whom the claimants were the dependents. The deceased was aged 23 years and was a labour at M/s. Mahalakshmi Traders, APMC Market Yard, Chintamani and was earning a sum of `30,000/- per month. Holding respondents No.1 and 2 as the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle and liable to pay them the compensation the claimants have claimed a compensation of `30,00,000/- from the respondents jointly and severally.

3. In response to the notice served upon them, respondents No.1 and 2, appeared through their counsel and filed their statement of objections. Respondent No.1 took a contention that the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid driving license to drive the alleged offending vehicle and the said vehicle was insured with respondent No.2. As such, respondent No.1 is not liable to pay any kind of compensation to the claimants.

Per contra, respondent No.2 Insurance Company in its statement of objections, denied the occurrence of the road traffic accident in the manner as alleged by the claimants in their claim petition. Further both respondents have denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased.

4. Before the Tribunal, the claimant No.1 got examined herself as PW-1 and marked documents from Exs.P.1 to P.10. However, respondents have neither examined any witness nor led any oral or documentary evidence .

5. After hearing both sides and analysing the evidence and the materials placed before it, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation under the following heads with the sum shown against them:

6. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of a sum of `12,79,600/- which was rounded off to `12,80,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum, thereupon holding the respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation and directed the Insurer to deposit the award amount. It is, against the said judgment and award, passed by the Tribunal, the claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

7. The respondent No.2 herein (Insurance Company) is represented by its counsel. Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with.

8. Though this matter was listed for admission, however with the consent of learned counsel from both side, the matter was taken up for its disposal. Learned counsel from both side placed before the Court the copies of the claim petition, depositions and exhibits, as such, there is no hindrance to proceed further in the matter for its final disposal. Accordingly, the matter was taken up for its fin