The main legal point established in the judgment is the allowance for higher future prospects based on actual evidence, deviating from the standard addition as prescribed in previous cases.

JUDGMENT :

The appellants are the petitioners in O.P.(M.V) No. 241/2002 on the files of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. The said claim petition was submitted by them seeking compensation for the death of one Praveen Rana due to the injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 26.10.2001. The 4th respondent herein was impleaded as one of the respondents, being the mother of the deceased. The 1st appellant was the wife, and the 2nd appellant was the daughter of the deceased.

2. According to the appellants, the accident occurred when the motorcycle ridden by the deceased through the NH47, was hit by a lorry bearing registration No.KL-2 H 6814, driven by the 2nd respondent. The said vehicle was owned by the 1st respondent and was insured with the 3rd respondent. Immediately thereafter, he was taken to the District Hospital, Kollam, but he succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital. According to the appellants, the deceased was working as a Lieutenant in the Indian Navy with a monthly income of Rs.19,345/-. The claim petition was submitted in such circumstances seeking a total compensation of Rs.35,00,000/-.

3. The 3rd respondent Insurance Company alone contested the matter by filing a written statement. They admitted the coverage of the policy but disputed the liability on various grounds. The negligence, as well as the quantum of compensation, was also disputed by them.

4. The evidence in this case consists of Exts.A1 to A9 from the side of the appellants. No evidence was adduced from the side of respondents. After the trial, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and therefore, the 3rd respondent, being the insurer of the said vehicle, was held liable to pay the compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.21,10,008/-and the 3rd respondent was directed to deposit the said amount along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. Upon such deposit, the said amount was directed to be apportioned among the appellants and the 4th respondent in the ratio 50:45:5. This appeal is submitted by the appellants in such circumstances seeking enhancement of compensation.

5. Heard Smt.Manju M. learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri.George Cherian (Thiruvalla), learned senior counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent Insurance Company.

6. The main dispute in this case is with respect to the quantum of compensation. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under various heads, particularly under the head of loss of dependency, is grossly inadequate and, therefore, requires reconsideration. Learned counsel further points out that the Tribunal has made an addition of future prospects of 50% only, whereas in the light of the evidence adduced in this case, a 100% addition should have been taken. The learned counsel points out that the deceased was working as a Lieutenant in the Indian Navy, and as per the service conditions of the deceased, he was entitled to an annual increment of 3%. To substantiate the said contention, Ext.A6 salary certificate and Ext.A8 service details containing the terms and conditions of pay, were relied on. It was pointed out that, the computation of yearly increment and the monthly income as on the date of his retirement were also explicitly referred to in Annexure A8.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants, also placed the reliance upon the decision rendered by the honourable Supreme Court, in Sureshchandra Bagmal Doshi and Another v. New India Assurance Company Limited and Others [2018 AIR SC 2088], and a decision rendered by a Single Bench of this Court in Simi, W/o. Biju P.varghese v. M/s Nair Brothers Carriers Pvt. Ltd. [2022 (6) KHC 603=2022 (6) KLT OnLine 1058].

8. The learned senior counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent stoutly opposes the said submission. It was pointed out that, as