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 06.06.2018 passed

by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru City

(SCCH-4) in MVC No.3847/2015.

3

2.

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 13.09.2015 at about 3.30

p.m. the deceased Sagar @ Shashank was proceeding

in a Zoom car bearing registration No. KA-03/AC-0013

from Chunchi falls view point towards Bengaluru.

When they reached near Chunchi Falls Bridge,

Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District, at that time,

the driver of the said vehicle drove the same at a high

speed and in a rash and negligent manner, lost control

over the vehicle and suddenly applied the brake and

toppled the car into the canal and caused the

accident. 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

4.

On service of summons, the respondent

Nos. 1 to 3 appeared through counsel and respondent

Nos.1 and 2 filed separate written statements in which

the averments made in the petition were denied. The

age, occupation and income of the deceased are

denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false

and frivolous in the eye of law. It was further pleaded

by respondent No.1 that at the time of the accident

the vehicle was not in the possession of the first

respondent and therefore, it is not a necessary or

proper party.

It was pleaded by respondent No.2 that the

driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid

driving licence as on the date of the accident. It was

further pleaded that the liability is subject to terms

and conditions of the policy. It was further pleaded

that the quantum of compensation claimed by the

5

claimants is exorbitant. Hence, they 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 got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P19.

On behalf of respondents, one witness was examined

as RW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1

to Ex.R5. 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.18,45,000/-

along with interest @ 8% p.a. and directed the

Insurance Company to deposit the compensation

6

amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this

appeal has been filed.

6.

The learned counsel for the claimants has

raised the following contentions:

Firstly, at the time of the accident the deceased

was aged about 19 years and was studying in third

semester of B.E. in Sai Vidya Institute of Technology,

he has very good academic qualification and he is very

good opportunity to get good job after completion of

his graduation and he was also conducting tuitions

and earning Rs.8,000/- per month. The monthly

income assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side.

In support of her contentions, she has relied on the

judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in MFA

No.294/2006 disposed of on 09.02.2010 wherein

this Court has assessed the income of the engineering

student at Rs.20,000/-. She has also relied on the

judgment of another Division Bench of this Court in

7

MFA No.9897/2008 disposed of on 10.11.2014

wherein in similar situation the notional income has

been considered as Rs.25,000/-.

Secondly, as per the judgment of the Hon9ble

Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL

INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. NANU RAM reported in

2018 ACJ 27