Compensation for accident victims must consider notional income accurately reflecting future prospects and dependency loss.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel appearing for KSRTC and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Notice to respondent No.2 in MFA No.5395/2016 is dispensed with.

2. These appeals by the KSRTC and by the petitioners arise out of the judgment and award passed in MVC No. 432/2015 dated 16.11.2015 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Beluru.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that, on the intervening night of 14.02.2015, at about 1.00 a.m., one Puneetkumar, was riding a motorcycle bearing No. KA.52.E.9014 at Beluru and a KSRTC Bus bearing No. KA.19.F.3109 came from the bus stand side and dashed to the motorcycle, resulting in injuries to the said deceased Puneetkumar and immediately, he was shifted to the Government Hospital, Beluru, where he was found to be HC-KAR brought dead. It was contended that the deceased was studying second year B.Com at Government First Grade College and therefore, his family members have suffered an irreparable loss and as such, they are entitled for a just and reasonable compensation.

4. On service of notice the respondent- KSRTC appeared and resisted the petition contending that it had paid a sum of ₹50,000/- as exgratia and there was no such negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. It was contended that the deceased was not having a valid driving licence.

5. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues and petitioner No. 2, who was the mother of the deceased was examined as PW1 and Exhibits P1 to P13 were marked. An eyewitness was examined as PW2. The driver of the bus was examined as RW1 and Exhibits R1 and R2 were marked.

HC-KAR

6. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal awarded compensation of ₹9,87,000/- under different heads as below:

7. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent-

KSRTC has approached this Court in MFA No.1047/2016 and the petitioners have approached this Court in appeal in MFA No.5395/2016.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contend that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and it has not considered the educational qualifications of the deceased in assessing the HC-KAR notional income which is applicable. Therefore, he prays for reassessment of the same.

9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the KSRTC contends that the compensation awarded is on the higher side and the Tribunal did not consider the fact that the deceased was riding the motorcycle in the wee hours for no reason. Therefore, he has sought for indulgence of this Court to hold that there was contributory negligence on his part also. However, he submits that such a ground was not raised in the appeal memo.

10. Evidently, the fact that there was an accident involving the motorcycle of the deceased and the bus owned by the respondent-KSRTC is not in dispute. The police papers produced clearly show that the negligence was attributed to the bus driver. It is also mentioned in the charge sheet that the accident was witnessed by several people who were on a pilgrimage to Dharamstala. Therefore, the investigation conducted by the police and the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer HC-KAR cannot be disputed. Moreover, nothing is brought out from the mouth of PW2, who is an eyewitness to show that there was contributory neglig