AND

AWARD

DATED:28.06.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.3553/2017 ON

THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE

AND MACT, BENGALURU(SCCH-11), PARTLY ALLOWING

THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING

ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 8the Act9,

for short) has been filed by the claimants being

3

aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.06.2018 passed

by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru in

MVC No.3553/2017.

2.

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 04.05.2017 at about 07.15

p.m., the deceased Ambuja Gopal was proceeding in a

motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-51-EH-8695 as

a pillion rider and the same was ridden by its rider-

cum-RC owner by name Mujahid from silk board

towards electronic city on NH-7 (BETL) elevated

flyover in a rash and negligent manner endangering to

human life, without observing any of the traffic rules

and regulations, while so proceeding reached near

electronic city phase-2 turning / curse (BMTC Depot)

due to his negligent riding lost control and dashed

against the flyover bridge. As a result of the aforesaid

accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and

succumbed to the injuries.

4

3.

The claimants filed a petition under Section

166 of the Act seeking compensation for the death of

the deceased along with interest.

4.

On service of summons, the respondent

Nos.1 and 2 have appeared through counsel and filed

written statement in which the averments made in the

petition were denied. It was pleaded that the petition

itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. The age,

occupation and income of the deceased are denied. It

was

further

pleaded

that

the

quantum

of

compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant.

Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.

5.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter

recorded the evidence. The claimants, in order to

prove their case, examined claimant No.1 as PW-1

and other two witnesses as PW-2 and PW-3 and got

5

exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P47. On

behalf of respondents, neither any witness was

examined nor any document was produced. The

Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia,

held that the accident took place on account of rash

and negligent riding of the offending vehicle by its

rider, as a result of which, the deceased sustained

injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The Tribunal

further held that the claimants are entitled to a

compensation of Rs.14,05,800/- along with interest at

the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Insurance

Company to deposit the compensation amount along

with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been

filed.

6.

The learned counsel for the claimants has

raised the following contentions:

Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased

was aged about 24 years at the time of the accident,

6

she has completed her MBA with Distinction and she

was earning Rs.13,500/- per month by working as

Recruiter HR at Stress Consulting. She left the said

job and has applied for a new job in Aaclat Company.

She has also attended the interview. As per the offer

letter which is marked at Ex.P17 dated 02.05.2017,

her monthly salary has been fixed as Rs.16,000/-.

But before she accepting the appointment letter, she

died on 04.05.2017 in the accident. The claimants

have also examined the Vice President of Aaclat

Company as PW-3 and he has also admitted that

monthly salary has been fixed as Rs.16,000/- as per

Ex.P17. But the Tribunal is not justified in taking the

monthly income of the deceased as merely as

Rs.9,000/-.

Secondly, as per the judgment of the Hon9ble

Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL

INSURANCE CO. LTD. 3V- NANU RAM [2018 ACJ

7

2782], each of the claimants are entitled for

compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 8loss