Point of Law: Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, deals with concept of 'just compensation' and same has to be determined on foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standards. The conception of 'just compensation' has to be viewed through prism of fairness, reasonableness and non-violation of principle of equitability.

JUDGMENT :

The appellants were the petitioners in O.P. (MV) No.284/2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda. The respondents in the appeal were the respondents in the claim petition. The parties are, for the sake of convenience, referred to as per their status in the claim petition.

2. The concise facts in the claim petition, relevant for the determination of the appeal, are: the 1st petitioner is the widow of Thoufeek (deceased), who died in a motor accident on 18.1.2002. The petitioners 2 and 3 are the parents of the deceased and the 4th petitioner is the child born in the wedlock between the deceased and the 1st petitioner. It is pleaded in the claim petition that, on 18.1.2002 while the deceased was riding his motorcycle bearing Reg. No.TC-76-95, a bus bearing Reg. No. KL 8/B-151 (offending vehicle) driven by the 2nd respondent, in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle. The 1st respondent is the owner of the bus and the 3rd respondent is the insurer. The deceased was aged 27 years on the date of accident. The deceased was the sole bread-winner of the family. The deceased was working as a Store Keeper-cum-Cashier and getting a monthly income of Rs.4,000/-plus allowances. The respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the petitioners a compensation of Rs.6,48,000/-,which was limited to Rs.6,00,000/-, with interest and proportionate costs.

3. The 1st respondent was absent and was set ex parte.

4. The 2nd respondent filed a written statement denying the allegations in the claim petition.

5. The 3rd respondent filed a written statement refuting the allegations in the claim petition, but it was admitted that the offending vehicle had a valid insurance policy. The 3rd respondent contended that the accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the deceased. Therefore, the respondents are not liable to pay any amount towards compensation.

6. The petitioners produced and marked Exts.A1 to A6 in evidence. The 3rd respondent produced and marked Ext.B1 (Insurance Policy) in evidence. Neither party adduced any oral evidence.

7. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, by the impugned award allowed the claim petition, in part, by permitting the petitioners to realise an amount of Rs.3,28,000/- from the respondents jointly and severally with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation and directed the 3rd respondent to pay the compensation amount.

8. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners are in appeal.

9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent/3rd respondent.

10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/petitioners argued that the Tribunal has gone wrong in not awarding adequate compensation under the conventional heads as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a plethora of decisions. He also contended that in view of the categoric declaration of law in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] and United India Insurance Company Ltd v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Others [2020 (3) KLT 760], the appellants are also entitled to future prospects. Similarly, even though the petitioners are four in number and were dependants on the deceased, the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd of the compensation towards personal living expenses of the deceased, which should have been 1/4th. Therefore, the appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation.

11. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent argued that the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation. The only mistake in the award is that the Tribnal wrongly adopted the multiplier of 18, which is actualy 17, in view of the law laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra). It