Ravikumar D.Y. aged 17 years, died in the year

2013, in a road accident as the KSRTC bus dashed against

the Toyota Quails. Ravikumar was the passenger in

Toyota Qualis. Parents and the brother of deceased

Ravikumar D. Y. sought compensation from KSRTC. It is

alleged that the driver of the KSRTC bus was negligent.

The finding of negligence against the driver of KSRTC is

not questioned. The Tribunal awarded Rs.5,40,000.00 as

compensation vide impugned judgment and award.

2.

Deceased was a student. Tribunal considered

Rs.30,000.00 per annum as the notional income of the

deceased. ‘16’ is the multiplier chosen based on the

mother’s age. According to the tribunal Rs.4,80,000/- is

3

the ‘loss of dependency’. In addition, Rs.50,000/- is

awarded under the head of love and affection and

Rs.10,000/-

towards

funeral

expenses.

In

all

Rs.5,40,000.00 is awarded. No interest is awarded on the

compensation.

3.

The claimants are seeking enhancement of

compensation by impugning the judgment and award

passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of

Small Causes, Bengaluru in MVC 4315/2013.

4.

Heard the learned counsel for the claimants

and the respondent/Corporation.

5.

The learned counsel for the appellants placed

reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this

Court in the case of CHETANA V/S. BABUJI M reported

in 2021(1) KLJ 249 and also the judgment of the learned

Single Judge of this Court in MFA 7690/2017 decided on

02.12.2021. By placing reliance on these two judgments,

it is urged that the deceased was aged 17 years in both

4

the cases referred above and they were considered

adolescents. The income of the deceased in the cases

referred supra was considered based on the chart prepared

by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority as if they

were the earning members. The learned counsel for the

appellants thus urged to apply the same ratio in the

present case and to assess the income of the deceased as

per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal

Services Authority.

6.

The learned counsel for the respondent/KSRTC

would oppose the claim for enhancement. It is urged that

the claimants have not pleaded anything about the income

of the deceased. It is pleaded that the deceased was a

student studying in 10^th standard. Whereas, in the

judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellants,

the Courts have awarded compensation on the proof of

income of the deceased. On this premise, it is submitted

that the facts of the case on hand do not attract the ratio

5

in the judgments cited and prayed for dismissal of the

appeal.

7.

This Court has perused the judgments referred

above. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the

respondent-Corporation, in the aforementioned judgments

cited by the appellants, this Court has determined the ‘loss

of dependency’ in the case of death of a 17-year-old boy,

based on proof of earnings. In the instant case, there is no

such pleading and proof relating to the income of the

deceased. Thus ratio laid in the aforementioned cases has

no application here.

8.

As already noticed, the accident and death

occurred in the year 2013. The deceased was aged 17

years, studying in 10^th standard. The tribunal fixed the

notional income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- per

annum.

9.

The question that falls for determination is,

“Whether a notional income of Rs.30,000/- per annum is a

6

just and fair assessment of the income for a person aged

17 years who died in the year 2013, in the absence of any

proof relating to his income?”

10.

The answer is ‘No’. Notional income of

Rs.30,000.00 per annum is on the lower side. This view

can be justified with reference to compensation awarded

by the Apex Court in the case of KISHAN GOPAL AND

ANOTHER vs LALA AND OTHERS reported in (2014) 1

Supreme Court Cases 244. In the said case compensation

of Rs.5,00,000/-is awarded to a boy aged 10 years who

died in the accident which occurred in the year 1992. The

notional income of the deceased