JUDGMENT :

Appellants are the petitioners in O.P.(MV).No.1841 of 2011 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kollam. This appeal is filed by the petitioners seeking enhancement of compensation. The claim petition was filed by them, seeking compensation for the death of one Ashokan due to the injuries sustained in a motor accident occurred on 21.07.2011. The accident occurred when the motor cycle on which the deceased was pillion riding was hit by a tempo trax vehicle, bearing registration No.KL-5G 9397. According to the appellants, the deceased was a mason, employed at Muscat and was earning a monthly income of Rs.20,000/-. He was aged 35 years at the time of accident. The total compensation claimed by the appellants/petitioners was Rs.10,00,000/-.

2. The respondent insurance company appeared and filed a written statement, admitting the coverage of policy; but disputed the liability on various grounds. The quantum of compensation was also seriously disputed.

3. The evidence in this case consists of Exts. A1 to A12. No oral evidence was adduced by either side.

4. After the trial, the Tribunal was pleased to pass an award allowing a total compensation of Rs.10,43,000/-and being the insurer, the respondent was directed to deposit the said amount along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent insurance company.

6. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the monthly income taken by the Tribunal was just Rs.6,000/-, which is on lower side. It was also contended that no addition was made towards future prospects while computing the compensation for loss of dependency.

7. It is evident from the records that, the deceased was working in Muscat. But, there is no proper evidence as to the monthly income earned by him. However, taking in to account the fact that he was employed abroad and was stated to be a mason, the monthly income of the deceased can be reasonably fixed as Rs.9,000/-for the purpose of computing the compensation. Apart from the above, it is seen from the records that, no addition was made by the Tribunal towards future prospects. In the light of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662], an addition at certain percentage in income of the deceased has to be made towards future prospects. In this case, the deceased was a person aged below 40 years and hence going by the principles laid down in the said judgment, 40% of the monthly income can be added towards future prospects. The deduction towards personal expenses made by the Tribunal was ¼th. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the said criteria can be retained.

8. In the above circumstances, the amount payable under the head of loss of dependency is re-determined as 17,01,000/-[12,600x12x15x3/4]. The amount already awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.8,10,000/-under this head and after deducting the said amount, remaining amount receivable by the appellants shall be Rs.8,91,000/-. Under the head of compensation for pain and suffering, no amount is seen awarded. In the facts and circumstances of the case, an amount of Rs.10,000/-can be awarded as compensation under this head. Under the head funeral expenses, an amount of Rs.25,000/-is awarded, which is in excess by Rs.10,000/-in the light of principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sathi’s case. However, it is seen that, amount awarded under the head of loss of estate is Rs.5,000/-only. Going by the principles in Pranay Sethi’s case, the amount to be awarded under this head is Rs.15,000/-and therefore, the said amount is lesser by Rs.10,000/-. As the excess amount awarded under the head of funeral expenses can be adjusted against the lessor amount awarded under the head of compensation for loss of estate, amounts under both the heads need not be interfered with. Apart from the above, Rs.1,00,000/-is g