The court emphasized proper assessment of compensation based on notional income, age, loss of dependency, and avoidance of double compensation, adhering to established legal precedents.

JUDGMENT :

(SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J.)

This appeal has been filed by the claimants in OP (MV)No.1131 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta. The respondents herein are respondents before the Tribunal.

2. According to the appellants/claimants, on 02.06.2015, at 12.45 p.m., while the deceased was walking through the side of Erumely – Kanamala public road, a maruthi car bearing registration No.KL-34-B-4277 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit on the deceased. As a result of the accident, the deceased sustained serious injuries and later he succumbed to the injuries. The appellants approached the Tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.60,00,250/-, which is limited to Rs.30,00,250/-.

3. The first and second respondents are the owner-cum-driver and the insurer of the offending vehicle respectively before the Tribunal. Though notice was served on the respondents, the first respondent remained ex parte. The second respondent-insurer filed a written statement, admitting the insurance policy, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Exts.A1 to A8 were examined on the side of the appellant. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the respondents. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of Rs.18,96,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition, till realization, against the respondent being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have come up in appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants claims enhancement mainly under the following heads:-

I. Notional Income

The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased was working as a cashier in a restaurant in New Delhi and was earning an amount of Rs.28,000/- per month. The learned counsel further submits that as per Ext.A7 salary certificate, his monthly income was shown as Rs.22,400/-. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that though Ext.A7 salary certificate was produced, the same was not proved through the employer, hence that cannot be accepted. However, it is a fact that the deceased was working in New Delhi, which is not specifically denied. The living expenses are more in Delhi. Considering the afore facts, I find it appropriate to re-fix the monthly income at Rs.15,000/- per month. Accordingly, the notional monthly income of the deceased is refixed as Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only).

II.Loss of dependency

The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal had wrongly taken the age of the deceased as “46”, whereas as per Ext.A8 postmortem certificate, the age of the deceased was shown as “45” years. On a perusal of the petition, it is seen that the age of the deceased was shown as “44” years. However, no document was produced to prove the same. A postmortem report can provide an estimate of the deceased’s age since the autopsy is done by experts. Considering Ext.A8 postmortem certificate, I am inclined to fix the age of the deceased as “45”. Since the age of the deceased is fixed as “45” years, the multiplier to be adopted is “14”. Since there are five legal heirs, the deduction to be made towards the personal expenses is 1/4th.

The learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the appellants are entitled to add 25% of monthly notional income towards future prospects for computing the compensation under the head loss of dependency, as per the ju