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

aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.08.2017 passed

by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sira in

MVC No.198/2016.

2.

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 14.01.2016 at about 02.30

p.m., when one Hanumantharayappa along with

deceased-Maradi Ranganatha were waiting for the Bus

on

Tumkur-Sira

NH-4

service

road,

near

Bramhasandra Gate, Kallambella Hobli, Sira Taluk and

at that time, the driver of Maruthi Omni Car bearing

Registration No.KA-02-MJ-5797 from Tumkur towards

4

Sira on the said NH-4 road drove the same in a rash

and negligent manner and dashed to the deceased

and others. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the

deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed

to the injuries.

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 appeared through counsel and only

respondent No.2 has 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

5

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 another witness as PW-2 and got exhibited

documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. 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

driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, 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.8,70,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9%

p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit

6

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 22 years at the time of the accident

and he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by doing

agricultural work, milk vending and flower business.

But the Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly

income of the deceased as merely as Rs.7,500/-.

Secondly, as per the law laid down by the

Hon9ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL

INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND

OTHERS [AIR 2017 SC 5157], in case the deceased

was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of

40% of the established income towards 8future

prospects9 should be the warrant where the deceased

7

was below the age of 40 years. The same may be

considered.

Thirdly, as per the judgment of the Hon9ble

Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL

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

2782], each of the claimants are entitled for

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

of love and affection and consortium9.

Fourthly, the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal under the conventional heads is on the lower

side. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal.

7.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for

the Insurance Company has raised the following

counter-contentions:

Firstly, even though the claimants claim that the

deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, the

same is not established by the claimants by producing

8

documents.

Therefore,

the

Tribunal

has

rightly

assessed the income of the deceased notionally.

Secondly,

since

the

claimants

have

not

est