Compensation in fatal accident cases must consider future prospects and determine liability accurately under the MV Act.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. These appeals are arising out of the common judgment and award dated 03.07.2017 passed by the Tribunal in MVC.No.59/2014 and MVC.No.76/2014 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge and MACT, Doddaballapura, Bangalore Rural District (For short, the 'Tribunal').

3. MFA.No.7214/2017 and MFA.No.1744/2021 are filed by the claimants i.e., the wife of the deceased and parents, brother and sister of the deceased for enhancement of compensation. Whereas, MFA.No.8322/2017 and MFA.No.8323/2017 are filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal on the ground of negligence and quantum of compensation.

MFA No. 8323 of 2017 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.

5. The appellant in MFA.No.7214/2017 is the wife of Sri Narasimharaju (hereinafter referred as the deceased) and the appellants in MFA.No.1744/2021 are the parents, brother and sister of the deceased Narasimharaju. On 16.02.2014 around 12.30 pm, the deceased was riding his motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-04-EZ-8231, on the extreme edge of Gundamagere Bevinahalli Road, a Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-14-A-8364 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from opposite direction and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased. Due to the terrific impact, the Narasimharaju sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. Thereafter, the body was shifted to Government Hospital, Doddaballapura, where postmortem examination was conducted there after claim petitions were filed by claimants under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act for seeking compensation.

MFA No. 8323 of 2017 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

6. Sri Y.K Sheshagiri Rao and Sri Jagadish G Kumbar, learned counsel for the claimants-appellants vehemently contended that the Tribunal has awarded only a meager compensation on all heads.

7. As on the date of the accident, the age of the deceased was 26 years and he was working as mason- cum-loader and earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards 'future prospects'. Hence, they pray to allow the appeals.

8. Sri. H.R.Renuka, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, vehemently contended that the Insurance Company has disputed the involvement of insured vehicle in the accident. Further, the evidence produced by the Insurance Company clearly demonstrates that the insured vehicle was implicated in the accident in collusion with the owner of the vehicle. Further, the owner of the vehicle voluntarily produced the vehicle without any issuance of notice on the very next day of the accident and after such MFA No. 8323 of 2017 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER production of the vehicle, the Police had issued notice under Section 133 of the Karnataka Police Act , 1963, to the owner of the vehicle. The injured vehicle is said to be involved in the accident on the basis of the wooden pieces found at the spot of accident. Further, the act of the owner of the vehicle in producing the vehicle on his own, without any prior notice by the police, would imply that there is collusion between the claimant and the owner of the vehicle. The owner has lent the vehicle to the claimant to claim unjust compensation. The mere production of vehicle by the owner before the police cannot by itself, be treated as proof that vehicle was involved in the