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

and

award

dated

31.1.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Kolar in MVC 94/2017.

2.

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 15.5.2017, when the

deceased Akshatha was proceeding on motorcycle

bearing registration No.KA-07-V-2521 as a pillion rider

to attend to project work to Scania Company, in front

of Alpyn Alloys Factory, Bengaluru-Kolar Byepass

road, at that time, Eicher canter bearing registration

No.KA-07-4926 which was being driven in a rash and

negligent manner, dashed against the vehicle of the

deceased. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the

4

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

No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written

statement in which the averments made in the

petition were denied.

The respondent No.1 did not appear before the

Tribunal inspite of service of notice and hence was

placed ex-parte.

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.P25.

5

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.688,000/- 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

and she was a MBA student. She was a brilliant

6

student and very good at her academics. But the

Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly income

of the deceased as merely as Rs.6,000/-.

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

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.

7

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, the deceased was a student and non-

earning member. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly

assessed the income of the deceased notionally.

Secondly,

since

the

claimants

have

not

established the income of the deceased, they are not

entitled for compensation towards 8future prospects9.

Thirdly, on appreciation of oral and documentary

evidence and considering the age and avocation of the

deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the

Tribunal is just and reasonable. Hence, he prays for

dismissal of the appeal.

8

8.

Heard the learned counsel for the parti