IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that notional income for compensation should reflect wages in the country of employment, not local rates, and clarified that mere overtaking does not imply negligence.

JUDGMENT :

The appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the Award dated 31.03.2021 in O.P.(MV)No.1707 of 2017 on the files of the IVth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam.

2. The brief facts for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: The respondents 1 and 2 are the claimants in O.P.(MV)No.1707 of 2017. The 2nd respondent is the mother of deceased Prasanth. On 17.06.2017 at 5 p.m, when Prasanth was travelling on a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL-02-AX-4851 from west to east direction through Puthakulam - Oonninmoodu Junction, he fell down due to the veer off his motorcycle. In the meantime, another motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL-02-Z-9662 driven by the 2nd respondent/4th respondent in the appeal in a rash and negligent manner came from east to west direction and hit the victim and ran over through his neck. Though Prasanth was taken to Medical College at Parippally, he was shifted to Ananthapuri Hospital for a specialised treatment. Later he was admitted to Medical College Hospital, Kollam, on 29.07.2017 and treated there as an inpatient up to 16.09.2017 and on 16.01.2018, he died due to the grievous injuries sustained in the accident. The Paravur Police registered a case against the 2nd respondent/4th respondent in the appeal.

3. The Insurance Company contested the claim before the Tribunal by filing a written statement stating that the accident happened at a spot which was 1.74 metres north from the southern tar end of the road, which was having a total width of 5.5 meters and therefore, it was obvious that the deceased was negligent while driving the motorcycle resulting in the accident. The claimants contended that the deceased Prasanth was employed in Qatar as a Marble Technician. The total income of the deceased was claimed at Rs.30,000/- per month. Exts.A1 to A29 were produced on the side of the claimants. RW1 was examined on the side of the respondents. The Tribunal on the analysis of the evidence on record, concluded that there was no negligence on the side of the deceased and thus rejected the contention of the Insurance Company. The Tribunal based on the documents on record which proved that the deceased was having a residency permit in Qatar came to the conclusion that Rs.30,000/- is the monthly income of the deceased and accordingly fixed the compensation granting Rs.57,78,756/- in total. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company has come up in appeal.

4. Heard P.G.Jayashankar – learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.M.Kiranlal – learned counsel for the claimants.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant raised the following submissions:

i. The income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.30,000/- is without any basis. No evidence is available before the Tribunal to conclude that the deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- per month as a Marble Technician.

ii. The Tribunal erred egregiously in fastening the liability on the appellant - insurer, especially since the deceased was also equally negligent in driving the motorcycle that resulted in the accident.

iii. In so far as the age of the deceased is concerned, admittedly, the deceased had crossed the age of 25 and hence the multiplier taken by the Tribunal is incorrect and the correct multiplier to be taken was ‘17’.

iv. The interest awarded by the Tribunal is also exorbitant.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the income fixed by the Tribunal is perfectly correct. The evidence before the Tribunal showed that the deceased was having a residency permit in Qatar and the details of the Visa also disclosed that he was a Marble Technician in Qatar. Even in the absence of any evidence to show that he was earning a monthly income of Rs.30,000/-, the Tribunal is justified in fixing the income, since the income of the Marble Technician cannot be equated with that of a person working in the State. In so far as the multiplier applied is concerned, the learned counsel for the claimants su