In motor accident claim cases, when documentary evidence regarding income is outdated, the court must assess income based on the notional income chart relevant to the year of the accident, and future prospects must be calculated at 25% for a self-employed person or those without permanent income aged 40-50.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

This appeal is by the Insurance Company under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) against the judgment and award dated 02.11.2022 in MVC No. 6051/2021 on the file of MACT and XV Additional Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru aggrieved by the saddling of 100% liability upon the Insurance Company as well the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the claimants who are the wife and minor sons of the deceased, filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation for the accidental death of one Sri.Lokesh.M in a motor vehicle accident involving motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-04-JW-0269 and School bus bearing registration No.KA-53-C-4369 on Bidarahalli Baiyappanahalli Village Road, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk at about 08.15 p.m., on 06.12.2021. It was submitted before the Tribunal that at the time of the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy, aged 45 years, was working as a driver at Narayana School and earning Rs.22,000/- p.m.

3. Before the Tribunal, upon issuance of notice, the Insurance Company appeared and filed its objections to the claim petition, denying the petition averments in toto, whereas, Respondent No. 4 herein was placed ex parte. On behalf of the claimants, the claimant No.1 examined herself as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P14. On behalf of the Insurance Company, one Sri.Dodda Lingayya was examined as RW1 and one Sri.Ibrahim Muzawar was examined as RW2, apart from marking Exs.R1 to R5. The tribunal upon examination of the material on record, saddled the entire liability upon the insurance company of the school bus with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the School Bus and awarded the total compensation of Rs.27,42,000/- along with interest @ 6% pa under the following heads:

4. While coming to the afore-stated conclusion, the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 17,800/- p.m., added 30% towards future prospects, deducted 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and adopted the multiplier of ‘14’.

5. Heard Sri.D.Vijayakumar, learned counsel for the insurance company and Sri.K.T.Gurudeva Prasad, learned counsel for the claimants. Perused the entire appeal papers including the Trial Court records.

6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company Sri.D.Vijayakumar has contended that the accident has occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle by the deceased. It is contended on behalf of the Insurance Company that the deceased did not have a valid driving licence and drove the motorcycle without wearing a helmet. It is contended on behalf of the insurance company that the claimants have colluded with the Police Authorities and falsely implicated the driver of the bus by creating false and fabricated documents. With regard to compensation, it is submitted that the pay slips produced by the claimants is more than a year old and hence, the claimants have failed to prove the monthly income of the deceased. It is also submitted that the Tribunal erred in awarding future prospects to the extent of 30%. Thus, it is prayed that the appeal filed by the Insurance Company be allowed to the above extent.

7. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.K.T.Gurudeva Prasad for the claimants would submit that the Tribunal is justified in attributing the negligence upon