In motor accident claim cases, where evidence of actual income is unreliable or unsubstantiated, courts must rely on established notional income charts, incorporate future prospects for those under 40, apply standard personal expense deductions, and cap interest rates at 6% unless special reasons justify higher awards.

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI)

The claimants in MVC Nos.883/2014 and 884/2014 have maintained the appeals in MFA Nos.104063/2016 and 104064/2016, praying to modify judgment and award dated 25.07.2015 passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and MACT-IV, Hospet (for short ‘the Tribunal’) and to enhance the compensation as prayed in the claim petitions.

2. Respondent No.2 in the above referred claim petitions namely the Divisional Controller, NEKRTC, Ballari (hereinafter referred as ‘the Corporation’) has directed the appeal in MFA No.103179/2015 praying to set aside the impugned judgment and award passed in MVC No.884/2014.

3. The claimants namely Smt. G.Annapoorna and her daughter namely Smt. G.Girija maintained the petitions in MVC Nos.883/2014 and 884/2014 under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation from the driver and the Corporation for the death of Sri G.Prabhudev and Kumari Netra G., respectively. The case of the claimants is that on 08.06.2014 at about 8.05 a.m., when Sri G.Prabhudev and his daughter Kumari Netra G., were going in a Honda Activa bearing No.KA-35-V-1319, near Sri Kanavi Veerabhadreshwar Temple on NH-13, a KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-35-F-13 came at high speed and in rash and negligent manner and dashed against their vehicle, as a result both of them sustained fatal injuries and later on succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said incident.

4. On service of the notice, the driver of the bus and the Corporation appeared before the Tribunal through their counsel and contested the claim petitions by filing their written statement. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed relevant issues, held enquiry in the matter and disposed of the claim petitions on merits of the case. The Tribunal, based on the materials available on record, held that the driver of KSRTC bus was solely responsible for the accident and accordingly, allowed the claim petitions in part holding that the claimants are entitled for compensation of ₹7,16,072/- and ₹11,51,600/- respectively together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.

5. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have preferred the appeals seeking enhancement of the compensation in both the claim petitions. However, the Corporation has preferred the appeal only against impugned judgment and award passed in MVC No.884/2014.

6. Sri Y. Lakshmikanth Reddy, learned Counsel for Claimants vehemently submitted that the Tribunal has not considered future prospects of the deceased while determining compensation. He further submitted that the Tribunal has even failed to award just and reasonable compensation under conventional heads. He contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in both the claim petitions is meager and inadequate. In view of the same, he prayed to allow the appeals and to award suitable compensation to the claimants.

7. Per contra, Sri S.C. Bhuti, learned Counsel for the Corporation vigorously submitted that the judgment and award passed in MVC No.884/2014 is opposed to facts and probabilities of the case. He submitted that the Tribunal failed to notice the documents produced at Ex.P9 and P12 being created documents, based on which the Tribunal wrongly took that deceased Kumari Netra G., was earning ₹10,200/- per month. He further submitted that even the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is wrong and that the Tribunal has erre