In fatal motor accident claims, the Court holds that notional income must be applied to determine dependency using a multiplier, and that all immediate family members, including siblings, are entitled to compensation for loss of consortium.

ORAL JUDGMENT

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

The above appeals are filed questioning the judgment and award dated 03.09.2020 in MVC.No.309/2020 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM and Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal-VII at Shivamogga (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

2. The insurer is in appeal in MFA.No.1556/2024 questioning the quantum of composition, whereas the claimants are in appeal in MFA.No.5712/2024 not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation and praying for enhancement of compensation.

3. The facts of the case are that, the claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation for the accidental death of Anil Kumar, son of claimant Nos.1 and 2 in a road traffic accident that took place on 23.07.2019 involving motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-14/ES-2204 and S.R.E bus bearing registration No.KA-16/C-9553. It is stated that, the deceased was aged 19 years as on the date of accident. It is further stated that the deceased was working as a Ward-boy and was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- p.m.

4. On service of notice, respondent No.3-insurance company appeared, whereas respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were placed ex-parte. Respondent No.3 in its objection admitted the insurance policy but contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing driving license as on the date of accident. Before the Tribunal, claimant No.1, mother of the deceased examined herself as PW1 apart from marking Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. No evidence or documents were placed on record by the respondent. The Tribunal on appreciation of the material placed on record awarded total compensation of Rs.22,31,800/- on the following heads, along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit:

5. While awarding compensation, the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.14,000/- p.m., deducted ¼ towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, applied multiplier of 18 and awarded consortium to claimant nos.1 and 2 only.

6. The insurer is in appeal, questioning the quantum of compensation, whereas the claimants are in appeal, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation, praying for enhancement of compensation.

7. Heard learned counsel Sri.A.M.Venkatesh for Smt.Kausalya, learned counsel for the for appellant/insurance company and learned counsel Sri.Harish.N.R., for claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 4 in the insurer appeal. Perused the Tribunal records and the appeal memo.

8. Learned counsel for the insurer would submit that the deceased was aged 16 years and in that regard he submits that along with additional documents, I.A.No.3/2024 for production of additional documents has been filed, wherein, appellant has placed on record school records of deceased to establish that he was aged 16 years. Therefore, he submits that the Tribunal could not have awarded the compensation on the head of dependency by applying multiplier. Thus, he would pray for allowing the appeal and to modify the compensation.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel Sri.Harish.N.R., for respondents/claimants would submit that the Tribunal committed grave error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.14,000/- p.m., when the claimants stated that deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- p.m., by working as Ward-Boy in a hospital. Further, learne