IMPORTANT POINTS
At the time of accident, the original claimant was aged 35 years. He claimed a monthly income of Rs.7,500/-as coconut plucker. As already noticed, no materials were placed before the Tribunal to show that, at the time of accident, the original claimant had a permanent job. Therefore, he can only be treated as self-employed. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Mekala, Syed Sadiq and Pranay Sethi, an addition of 40% of the notional monthly income of the original claimant, as re-fixed in this appeal considering the economic conditions prevailing at the time of accident and taking note of the fixation of notional monthly income by the Apex Court in Ramachandrappa and in Syed Sadiq referred to supra, can be made towards future prospects, since the original claimant was below the age of 40 years.

JUDGMENT :

Appellants 2 to 4 are supplemental claimants 2 to 4 in O.P(MV)No.225 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur, who are the wife and children of one Ravi, the deceased original claimant in that claim petition, who sustained injuries in a motor accident, which occurred on 26.05.2002, while he was walking along the side of a National Highway. At the place of accident, he was knocked down by a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-8/L-8241, ridden by the 1st respondent, owned by the 2nd respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent. In the accident, he sustained injuries. Alleging that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the 1st respondent driver, claim petition was filed before the Tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-, under various heads. During the pendency of the claim petition, the original claimant died on 07.05.2004. After his death, his wife and children got themselves impleaded as supplemental claimants 2 to 4. The claim petition was also amended, as per the order dated 15.10.2008 in I.A.No.3591/2007, and the total claim was amended as Rs.7,00,000/-, by contending that the death of the original claimant, on 07.05.2004, was due to the injuries sustained in the motor accident which occurred on 26.05.2002. In the order dated 15.10.2008, the question as to whether the death of the original claimant was due to the injuries sustained in the motor accident or not was left open for consideration at the time of evidence.

2. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent rider of the motorcycle did not file any written statement. The 2nd respondent owner remained absent and he was set ex parte. The 3rd respondent insurer filed written statement admitting insurance coverage of the motorcycle involved in the accident; however, denying negligence alleged against the 1st respondent rider. The age, occupation, monthly income, etc. stated in the claim petition were denied and it was contended that the compensation claimed is highly excessive. After the amendment of the claim petition, the insurer filed additional written statement, contending that, the death of the original claimant was not as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident. The insurer pointed out the absence of a postmortem certificate showing the cause of death.

3. The 4th respondent, the mother of the deceased original claimant, filed written statement contending that she was fully dependent upon his income. After the death of the original claimant, the supplemental 2nd appellant left her matrimonial home, along with her children. Since her medical expenses were met by the deceased original claimant, she is entitled for a share in the compensation to be awarded in the claim petition.

4. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A13 were marked on the side of supplemental claimants and PWs.1 and 2 were examined. The 4th respondent was examined as RW1.

5. After considering the pleadings and materials on record, the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the 1st respondent rider. Since insurance coverage of the said vehicle was not in dispute, the 3rd respondent insurer was held liable to indemnify the insured. The Tribunal held that, in the absence of any reliable materials, it cannot be concluded that the death of the original claimant was on account of the injuries sustained in the motor accident, which occurred on 26.05.2002. Therefore, the Tribunal treated the claim as one claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by the original claimant. Under various heads, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,47,600/-together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation, with a cost of Rs.5,000/-, and the 3rd respondent insurer was directed to satisfy the awar