The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of notional monthly income of the deceased and the reasonableness of compensation, based on precedents and legal principles.

JUDGMENT :

The 3rd respondent – insurer in O.P. (MV) No. 197 of 2016 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punalur is the appellant. The petitioners and respondents 4 and 5 in the claim petition are the respondents in the appeal. The parties are, for the sake of convenience, referred to as per their status in the claim petition.

2. The petitioners had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the death of Mahesh (deceased) - the son of the petitioners 1 and 2 and the brother of the 3rd petitioner. The petitioners have averred in the claim petition that, on 13.4.2016, while the deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-02AT/1335 along the Kollam-Schencottah National Highway, a private bus bearing Reg.No. KL-16 H/2223 (Bus), driven by the 2nd respondent in a negligent manner and on the wrong side, hit the motorcycle. The deceased sustained fatal injuries and lost his life instantaneously. The 1st respondent was the owner and the 3rd respondent was the insurer of the bus. The deceased was an Electrical and Electronic Engineer and was an aspirant to the post of Assistant Engineer in the Kerala State Electricity Board. He would have drawn a monthly salary of Rs.30,000/-. The petitioners were dependant on the deceased. Accordingly, the petitioners claimed a compensation of Rs.75,00,000/- from the respondents.

3. The respondents 1 and 2 did not contest the proceeding and were set ex parte. The 3rd respondent had filed a written statement, inter alia, refuting the allegations in the claim petition and contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased, and at any rate, the deceased was guilty for contributory negligence. The 3rd respondent also disputed the age, income and occupation of the deceased. The 3rd respondent prayed for complete exoneration of its liability.

4. The 1st petitioner examined himself as PW1 and marked Exts.A1 to A28 in evidence. The respondents did not let in any evidence.

5. The Tribunal allowed the claim petition, in part, by permitting the petitioners to recover from the 3rd respondent-insurer an amount of Rs.31,59,000/- with interest and cost.

6. Aggrieved by the allowing of the claim petition, the insurer is in appeal.

7. Heard; Sri. P.G. Jayashankar, ably assisted by Kum. P.K. Reshma, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurer.

8. The cardinal grounds of challenge in the memorandum of appeal are:(i) the fixation of the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.20,000/- is erroneous; and (ii) in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011) 13 SCC 236], the notional monthly income of the deceased could only have been fixed at Rs.10,500/-.

9. As the grounds (i) and (ii) are intertwined, they are being considered together.

10. Sri. P.G. Jayashankar strenuously argued that, even though the deceased had completed his Engineering Course from the King's College of Technology in April, 2014, he passed the examinations only in 2015. Hence, the allegation that the deceased was offered a job abroad, as per Exts.A27 and A28, is incorrect. Consequentially, the fixation of the monthly income of the deceased on a notional basis at Rs.20,000/- was on the higher side. To fortify his submission, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme in Meena Pawaia and Others v. Ashraf Ali and Others [AIR Online 2021 SC 1044], wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding the case of an Engineering student, who lost his life in an accident on 12.09.2012, fixed the notional monthly income at Rs.10,000/- per month. He also relied on the decision of the High Court of Madras in J. Chitra. v. R. Deena Dhayalan & Another [2019 KHC 5324], wherein, the notional monthly income of an unemployed Civil Engineer was fixed at Rs.15,000/-. Hence, he contended that the Tribunal ought to have fixed the noti