<p>The High Court of Karnataka has increased compensation to be paid to the family of a 17-year-old killed in a road accident nine years ago.</p>.<p>The notional income considered for determining the compensation should be rational and sensible, Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde ruled.</p>.<p>The teenager died in 2013 after a KSRTC bus collided with a car in which he was travelling.</p>.<p>On January 31, 2015, a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bengaluru awarded the family a compensation of Rs 5.4 lakh without any interest. The tribunal had considered Rs 30,000 as the victim's notional income per year. The parents and brother of the victim, however, approached the high court seeking higher compensation from the KSRTC.</p>.<p>After perusing material and apex court judgments, Justice Hegde observed that the determination of Rs 30,000 per annum as notional income is too low. The bench said that the court has to take into account the cost of living, inflation, erosion in the value of the rupee and consequent revision in wages while determining the compensation payable under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.</p>.<p>"While deciding the cases relating to compensation payable, the courts and the tribunals need to be alive to the changing situations. If the compensation is assessed by taking into consideration the figures not relevant at the time of the accident, the compensation determined will not reflect the just compensation payable to the victim.</p>.<p>Even if notional income is to be considered for determining compensation, the notional income to be arrived at should be rational and sensible. If not, the very object of awarding compensation gets defeated. Compensation awarded by taking grossly inadequate notional income cannot be termed as compensation in its truest sense of the word," Justice Hegde said.</p>.<p>The court modified the tribunal's order and granted a compensation of Rs 11 lakh with 6% interest after deducting the amount already paid.</p>
<p>The High Court of Karnataka has increased compensation to be paid to the family of a 17-year-old killed in a road accident nine years ago.</p>.<p>The notional income considered for determining the compensation should be rational and sensible, Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde ruled.</p>.<p>The teenager died in 2013 after a KSRTC bus collided with a car in which he was travelling.</p>.<p>On January 31, 2015, a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bengaluru awarded the family a compensation of Rs 5.4 lakh without any interest. The tribunal had considered Rs 30,000 as the victim's notional income per year. The parents and brother of the victim, however, approached the high court seeking higher compensation from the KSRTC.</p>.<p>After perusing material and apex court judgments, Justice Hegde observed that the determination of Rs 30,000 per annum as notional income is too low. The bench said that the court has to take into account the cost of living, inflation, erosion in the value of the rupee and consequent revision in wages while determining the compensation payable under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.</p>.<p>"While deciding the cases relating to compensation payable, the courts and the tribunals need to be alive to the changing situations. If the compensation is assessed by taking into consideration the figures not relevant at the time of the accident, the compensation determined will not reflect the just compensation payable to the victim.</p>.<p>Even if notional income is to be considered for determining compensation, the notional income to be arrived at should be rational and sensible. If not, the very object of awarding compensation gets defeated. Compensation awarded by taking grossly inadequate notional income cannot be termed as compensation in its truest sense of the word," Justice Hegde said.</p>.<p>The court modified the tribunal's order and granted a compensation of Rs 11 lakh with 6% interest after deducting the amount already paid.</p>
