IMPORTANT POINT
Compensation for loss in motor accident cases must be just, fair, and reflective of actual loss, including proper assessment of income and dependents' needs.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal has been filed by the petitioners in O.P.(MV) No.192/2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thalassery, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the tribunal, on account of the death of Smt. Bindu, who died in a motor accident that occurred on 21.11.2012.

2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that on 21.11.2012, at about 3.30 p.m., while the deceased Bindu was travelling in an autorickshaw bearing registration No. KL-58-D-8636 from Meruvambayi to Chattukappara and when the said autorickshaw reached Edayannur, a tipper lorry bearing registration No. KL-58-G-9398 came from the opposite direction driven by the first respondent, in a rash and negligent manner hit on the autorickshaw in which the deceased and some other passengers were travelling. Due to the impact of the hit, the autorickshaw was capsized and the deceased Bindu as well as the other passengers sustained serious injuries. Immediately after the accident, though the injured Bindu was rushed to the Hospital, she succumbed to the injuries, on the way to the hospital.

3. The owner cum driver of the tipper lorry bearing registration No. KL-58-G-9398 was arrayed as the 1st respondent, whereas, the insurer of the said lorry was arrayed as the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent insurer contested the petition and filed a written statement mainly disputing the quantum of compensation claimed in the petition. However, the 2nd respondent admitted the insurance coverage for the offending lorry. Petitioner’s evidence consists of Exts. A1 to A18. From the side of the fifth respondent, Ext.B1 was marked.

4. After trial, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent, the owner cum driver of the offending lorry. The 2nd respondent, being the insurer was held liable to pay the compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed at Rs.11,30,000/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the compensation awarded, the petitioners have come up with this appeal.

5. Heard Sri. V.P. Mohanan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Smt. Deepa George, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent Insurance Company and Sri. P. Jacob Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent Insurance Company.

6. From the rival contentions raised from either side, it is gatherable that the main dispute that revolves around in this appeal is with respect to the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. The learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under various heads is too meager and not in consonance with the hardships and the loss suffered by the bereaved family of the deceased due to her untimely death. From a perusal of the award, it is gatherable that for the purpose of awarding compensation, the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/-. After making an addition of 50% to the said income towards future prospects, the tribunal finally assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 7,500/-. The case of the petitioners was that, during the period when the accident occurred, the deceased was working as a Sales Assistant in a Maveli Store and was getting a daily wage of Rs. 200/-. Anyhow, irrespective of the pleadings of the parties, it was incumbent upon the part of the tribunal to ensure that the compensation awarded is just, fair, and reasonable. In this regard, I am fortified by the decision in Rajesh & others v. Rajbir Singh & Others [2013 (3) KLT 89 (SC)]. Evidently, the accident occurred in the year 2012. Therefore, in view of the principles laid down in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236] the tribunal ought to have assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8,500/- However, the finding of the Tribunal that 50%