1. This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ the’, for short) has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 14.8.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru in MVC 2116/2018.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 14.2.2018, when the deceased Vinod Kumar Yadav was riding the bicycle on the extreme left side near Shivanapalya Cross road, near Dubasipalya Railways Gate, at that time, a Bolero Jeep bearing registration No.KA-31-M-5971 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of theseeking compensation for the death of the deceased along with interest.

4. On service of summons, the respondents appeared through their counsel and filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimants, in order to prove their case, examined claimant No.1 as PW-1 and another witness as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P15. On behalf of respondents, neither any witness was examined nor any document was produced. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.17,72,431/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

6. The learned counsel for the claimants has raised the following contentions:

Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased was aged about 30 years at the time of the accident and he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by working as coolie. But the Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased as merely as Rs.10,000/-.

Secondly, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS [AIR 2017 SC 5157 [LQ/SC/2017/1578] ], in case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income towards ‘future prospects’ should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. The same may be considered.

Thirdly, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. –V- NANU RAM [2018 ACJ 2782 [LQ/SC/2018/1175] ], each of the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of ‘loss of love and affection and consortium’.

Fourthly, considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised the following counter-contentions:

Firstly, even though the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, the same is not established by the claimants by producing documents. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased notionally.

Secondly, since the claimants have not established the income of the deceased, they are not entitled for compensation towards ‘future prospects’.

Thirdly, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

9. It is not in dispute that deceased Vinod Kumar Yadav died in the road traffic accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

The claimants claim that deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. But they have not produced any documents to prove the income of the deceased. In the absence of proof of income, the notional income has to be assessed. As per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for the accident taken place in the year 2018, the notional income of the deceased has to be taken at Rs.12,500/- p.m.

To the aforesaid income, 40% has to be added on account of future prospects in view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in ‘PRANAY SETHI’ (supra). Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.17,500/-. Since there are four dependents, it is appropriate to deduct 1/4th of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses and remaining amount has to be taken as his contribution to the family. The deceased was aged about 30 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘17’. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.26,77,500/- (Rs.17,500*12*17*3/4) on account of ‘loss of dependency’.

In addition, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘loss of estate’ and compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘funeral expenses’. Claimant No.1, wife of the deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'loss of spousal consortium'.

In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of ‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE’ (supra), claimant Nos.2 and 3, children of the deceased are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of ‘loss of parental consortium’ and claimant No.4, mother of the deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of ‘loss of filial consortium’ .

The compensation of Rs.142,431/- awarded by the Tribunal under 'medical expenses' is as per medical bills produced by the claimants and the same is just and reasonable.

10. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation:

11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.30,09,931/- as against Rs.17,72,431/- awarded by the Tribunal.

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.