IMPORTANT POINTS:
On a perusal of the impugned award, it is seen that the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.6,12,000/- towards loss of dependency. Considering that the deceased was 26 years old at the time of his death, his income was fixed at Rs.6,000/-, the multiplier is 17, future prospects is 40% and after deducting 1/3 towards personal and living expenses, the compensation under the head-loss of dependency has to be enhanced and re-fixed at Rs.11,42,400/-, instead of Rs.6,12,000/- fixed by the Tribunal.

JUDGMENT :

Is the Appellate Court competent to enhance the compensation in an appeal filed by only one of the petitioners, is the question that emerges for consideration in this appeal.

2. The appellant, the third petitioner in OP(MV) 325/2012, is aggrieved by the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. The respondents 1 to 3 in the appeal were the respondents 1 to 3 and the respondents 4 and 5 in the appeal were the petitioners 1 and 2 before the Tribunal. The parties are, for the sake of convenience, referred as per their status in the claim petition.

3. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'Act'), claiming compensation on account of the death of Nidheesh, the son of petitioners 1 and 2 and husband of the third petitioner.

4. The concise case of the petitioners in the claim petition was that, on 26.10.2010, while the deceased was travelling in a car bearing registration No.KL-18E 2945, driven by the second respondent, owned by the first respondent and insured with the third respondent, the car hit the road divider near Sarovaram Park, Eranhipalam, Kozhikode. In the impact, the deceased got thrown out of the car, and died instantaneously. The deceased was aged 26 years. He was working as a salesman and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.6,000/-. The petitioners sought a compensation of Rs.17,08,000/- , which was limited to Rs.10,00,000/-.

5. The third respondent filed a written statement, inter alia, contending that the compensation claimed was excessive. There was no negligence on the part of the second respondent in driving the car. However, the car was insured with the third respondent.

6. Neither the petitioners nor the respondents adduced any oral evidence. Exts A1 to A3 were produced and marked in evidence on the side of the petitioners.

7. After considering the pleadings and materials on record, the Tribunal by the impugned award allowed the claim petition, in part, by holding that the petitioners were entitled to compensation of Rs.6,38,000/- with 7% interest from the date of petition till the date of deposit and proportionate costs. The Tribunal directed the third respondent to deposit the compensation, and the same to be apportioned among the petitioners in the ratio of 2:1:1.

8. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the third petitioner – wife of the deceased, has preferred this appeal.

9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent in the appeal – the Insurance Company.

10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that he was confining his arguments to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. He contended that the Tribunal has failed to award compensation for future prospects as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680], Munna Lal Jain and another v. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others [(2015) 6 SCC 347], United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others [2020 (3) KHC 760] and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121]. He also contended that the Tribunal failed to grant compensation, as per the principles laid down in the above decisions, under the conventional heads viz., loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. He prayed that the appeal be allowed and the quantum of compensation be enhanced.

11. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent vehemently opposed the above arguments. He argued that as the respondents 4 and 5/petitioners 1 and 2 have not joined the appellant, it is to be assumed that they are not aggrieved by the award. Hence, the appeal as against the third respondent may be dismissed as the grievance of the appellant is principally against respondents 4 and 5 regarding the apportionment of compens