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 19.04.2023 in MVC No. 3680/2019 on the file of VI Addl. Judge Court of Small Causes and Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and MACT, Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) 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 claimant No. 1 who is the wife and claimant Nos. 2 and 3 who are the children of the deceased filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation for the accidental death of one Sri. C Sidda Reddy on 12.02.2019, at about 5.20 p.m., involving motorcycle bearing Reg.No. AP-03-BJ-8096 (driven by the deceased) and Lorry bearing Reg.No. NL-01-Q-0228 (insured by the appellant herein) near Central Dhaba, on Madanapalle-Angallu Road. The deceased was aged about 57 years at the time of the accident and earning Rs. 86,000/- p.m. working as a teacher at a government school.

3. Before the Tribunal, upon issuance of notice, learned counsel for respondent No.1 therein (owner of the lorry) and respondent No.2 (appellant herein) appeared before the Tribunal and respondent No. 2 filed their written statement contending that the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of the deceased as well as denying the age and income of the deceased, and other claim petition averments, in toto. On behalf of the claimants, claimant No. 2 was examined as PW1 and another witness was examined as PW2, apart from marking Exs. P1 to P15. Whereas, on behalf of the insurance company, the legal manager was examined as RW1, apart from marking Exs. R1 and R2.

4. The tribunal upon examination of the material on record, saddled the entire liability upon the insurance company of the lorry and awarded the total compensation of Rs.67,30,670/- along with interest @ 6% pa under the following heads:

5. While coming to the afore-stated conclusion, the Tribunal assessed the annual income of the deceased at Rs.9,52,996/-, added 15% towards future prospects, deducted 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and adopted the multiplier of ‘09’.

6. Heard Sri. Ashok N Patil, learned counsel for the insurance company and Sri. Ramachandra Halinathota, learned counsel for the claimants. Perused the entire appeal papers including the Trial Court records.

7. Learned counsel Sri. Ashok N Patil for the insurance company would submit that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the deceased, as he was riding the same without wearing the helmet and in disregard to the vehicular movement of the lorry. It is submitted that, since the deceased was not wearing helmet and since the deceased succumbed due to head injuries, the learned Tribunal erred in attributing the entire negligence upon the driver of the lorry. It is submitted that the Tribunal erred in improperly deducting the income tax from the gross annual income of the deceased and that the same needs interference. Thus, it is prayed that the appeal filed by the insurance company be allowed to the above extent.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants Sri. Ramachandra Halinathota would submit that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry. It is submitted that the Tribunal is justified in saddling the entire liability upon the appellant herein which requires no interference. Thus, it is prayed that the appeal filed by the insurance company be dismissed.

9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire app