Point of Law : Motor Accident claim - Claimants are not entitled to get interest for the period for which, filing of the Cross Objection was delayed.

JUDGMENT :

The appeal and the Cross Objection are originated from an Award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ottappalam (for short 'the Tribunal') on 21.01.2016 in O.P.(M.V.) No.452/14 . The appeal was preferred by the insurer contending that the Tribunal went wrong in fixing the monthly income notionally as Rs.7,000/-and arriving at the multiplicand by adding 50% to it in consideration of future prospects.

2. According to Smt.Santhi, the learned counsel for the insurer, the victim of the motor accident who succumbed to the injuries being a student of final year Diploma, aged 21 years, the Tribunal ought not to have fixed the monthly income notionally as Rs.7,000/-and added 50% of it in consideration of future prospects to arrive at the multiplicand. According to him, a sum lesser than Rs.7,000/-ought to have been taken and 40% of it ought to have been added to it. Contentions were also raised to the effect that the sum awarded as compensation for loss of dependency and loss of love and affection and the rate of interest ordered as payable for the amount awarded as compensation are also on the higher side.

3. The learned counsel has also called attention of this Court to a legitimate claim that the Cross Objection having been preferred before this Court by the Claimants after a lapse of five years from the date of filing of the appeal by the insurer, this Court ought not to have ordered interest for the period of delay. According to her, the direction to pay interest ought to have been confined to the period of pendency of the claim petition, excluding the period of delay occurred in filing the Cross Objection.

4. The Cross Objectors are the claimants who are the dependents of the deceased and the main contention raised was that, the deceased was a final year student of Diploma in Electronics at Government Polytechnic, Palakkad and selection having been obtained for a decent job in a Campus interview, the Tribunal ought to have taken a sum higher than Rs.7,000/-as his monthly income notionally and compensation for loss of dependency assessed on its basis. For the sake of clarity, Cross objectors are referred to hereinafter as the claimants.

5. Ramakrishnapillai K. and others v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd [2015 (3) KLJ 750] and National Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai v. Fathimath Zuhara @Zuhra Razak [2016 KHC 691] were relied on by the claimants to contend that Rs.12,000/-ought to have been fixed by the Tribunal as monthly income on notional basis and the compensation payable for loss of dependency, assessed on its basis. It was further contended that Rs.10,000/-awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of estate is on the lower side and on the basis of the dictum in National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)] the same ought to have been fixed as Rs.15,000/-. Accordingly claimants seek for interference and modification of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, under challenge.

6. True that in Pranay Sethi (supra) a larger bench of the Apex Court in its venture to answer a reference placed before it and with a view to standardise the procedure while awarding compensation, arrived at conclusions which are extracted hereinbelow :

“61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions :

(I) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a Larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.

(II) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.

(III) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the d