IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that in cases of motor vehicle accidents, the assessment of compensation must consider notional income, future prospects, and the specific needs of the dependents, ensuring a fair and just compensation reflective of the victim's contributions to the family.

JUDGMENT :

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA

Claimants in OP(MV) No.1459/2014 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’] have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal as claimants and respondents.

3. On 27.4.2014, while the victim Vinod Kumar was riding a motorcycle through the public road at Ambalappadi Junction, Kozhikode, a car bearing registration No.KL-13/S-8825 owned and driven by R1, hit on the motor cycle of the victim causing fatal injuries to the victim. He succumbed to the injuries on 3.5.2014. His widow, two minor children and mother filed the claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation against R1 who was the RC owner cum driver and R2 who is the insurer of the offending vehicle.

4. By the impugned award, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.13,36,790/-as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, claimants have come in appeal.

5. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. Records perused.

6. There is no dispute over the fact that the victim Vinod Kumar met with a motor vehicle accident on 27.4.2014 and due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he succumbed to the injuries on 3.5.2014. There is no challenge over the fact that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending car by R1.

7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the claimants that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meager; that the notional income taken by the Tribunal for assessing the compensation is very low; that the compensation awarded under all heads are on a lower side and it is not a just compensation as mandated by law.

8. Let us see whether the claimants are entitled to any enhanced compensation and if so, what is the quantum.

9. The Tribunal calculated the compensation by taking notional income as Rs.6,000/-per month. The Tribunal added 30% of the notional income towards future prospects and deducted 1/4th of the income towards personal and living expenses.

10. The case of the claimants is that the victim was earning a monthly income of Rs.30,000/-. Their case is that he was working as a conductor in a bus and was earning income from that job. Apart from that, he was also running a rental outlet wherein furniture needed for events like wedding were being rented out and thus he was earning a total monthly income of Rs.30,000/-.

11. The learned counsel for the claimants contended that even if the income of the victim from the business could not be proved by adducing documentary evidence, the Tribunal ought to have believed the version of PW1 regarding the monthly income.

12. On the side of the claimants PW1 who is the wife of the victim was examined. She testified that her husband viz. the victim was working as a conductor in a bus and he was also running a furniture rental outlet named ‘Simple Store’ at Ukkada, Kozhikode. Her categoric version is that she also used to assist her husband in running the said shop. Thus, according to PW1, her husband Vinod Kumar was earning a total monthly income of Rs.30,000/- from his job as conductor and from the income from the furniture rental business run by him. Ext.A8 is the conductor licence of deceased Vinod Kumar.

13. This Court find no reason to disbelieve the version of PW1 that her husband Vinod Kumar was running a furniture rental outlet named ‘Simple Store’ at Ukkada, Kozhikode, wherein furniture needed for events like wedding etc. were being rented out. It is in evidence that the deceased was working as a conductor in a bus and he was also running furniture rental outlet at Ukkada, Kozhikode. Though there is no documentary evidence regarding the income which he was earning, it is to be borne in mind that the victim Vinod Kumar was the breadwinner of his family consisting of his wife, two childre