Heard.

“Whether

the

compensation

awarded

to

the

appellants under the impugned award is just?” is the question

involved in this case.

3.

The appellants are the mother and younger brother

of deceased Kiran B.R. For the purpose of convenience, the

parties will be referred to henceforth according to their ranks

before the Tribunal.

4.

On 14.12.2016 at 2.45 p.m. when Kiran was riding

his Honda Unicorn motorbike bearing registration No.KA.04-HN-

6436 near SVN Convent within the limits of Tavarekere police

station, Bengaluru South Taluk, the lorry bearing registration

No.KA-41-B-5958 hit the motorbike of the Kiran. When Kiran

fell down, wheel of the lorry ran over him causing his instant

- 3 -

death. At the relevant time, respondent Nos.1 and 2 were the

insurer and owner of the said lorry.

5.

The appellant filed MVC.No.1143/2017 against the

respondents before VII Additional SCJ and ACMM, Bengaluru

claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- on the ground that

deceased Kiran was their sole breadwinner. They further

claimed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent

driving of the lorry by its driver. Therefore, the respondents are

liable to compensate the damages to them.

6.

Respondent No.2 alone contested the petition

denying the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of

the lorry, age, occupation, income of the deceased and its

liability to pay the compensation.

7.

The Tribunal on recording the evidence of the

parties and on hearing them by the impugned award held that

the accident occurred due to actionable negligence of driver of

the lorry bearing registration No.KA-41-B-5958. Though the

Tribunal rejected the claim of the appellant that deceased was

earning Rs.16,500/- per month from his employment in SLV

Petrol Bunk in Magadi, considering his academic records Exs.P5

to 8 and RTC Ex.P16, notionally assessed his income at

- 4 -

Rs.12,000/- per month. The Tribunal deducted half of the said

income for the personal income of the deceased, added 40% to

the said by way of future prospects, applied 18 multiplier and

awarded compensation of Rs.18,14,400/- on the head of loss of

dependency.

8.

The Tribunal in all awarded the compensation of

Rs.18,84,400/- on different heads as per the table below:

Sl.

No.

Particulars

Compensation

awarded in

Rs.

Loss of dependency

18,14,400/-

Loss of filial consortium (for

petitioner No.1)

40,000/-

3.

Loss of estate

15,000/-

4.

Transportation of dead body and

funeral expenses

15,000/-

Total

18,84,400/-

9.

Sri Sathish K, learned Counsel for the appellants

submits

that

despite

examining

the

Manager

of

the

establishment where the deceased was working to prove

Exs.P18 to 20, the Tribunal was not justified in declining to

accept the income of the deceased. Relying on the judgment of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Param Pal Sharda and others Vs

Dhani Ram and others¹, he submits that the Tribunal should

1 AIR 2022 Supreme Court 4620

- 5 -

have accepted the income of the deceased at Rs.16,500/- per

month. He submits that compensation awarded on the other

heads also is on the lower side.

10.

Per contra Sri Ravi S Samprathi, learned Counsel

for respondent No.1 justifies the impugned award on the

ground that the employer himself was not examined and no

acceptable proof like Wage register or Bank records regarding

disbursement of the salary were produced. Therefore, the

Tribunal was right in notionally assessing the income at

Rs.12,000/- per month. He submits that the judgment of the

Param Pal Sharda’s case is not applicable.

11.

So far as the occurrence of the accident due to

negligence of the driver of the lorry, age, multiplier applicable

and rate of future prospects, there is no dispute. Accepting the

same, the insurer has satisfied the award. The prime question

is ‘whether the Tribunal committed error in not relying on

Exs.P17 to 20 to accept the contention that the deceased

earning wages at Rs.16,200/-?’.

12.

According to PW.2 himself he was not the employer,

he was only allegedly a