Compensation adjustments in motor accident claims must conform to established legal precedents regarding dependency calculations and loss of consortium; unnecessary claims for love and affection may be denied.

JUDGMENT :

C.S. Sudha, J.

This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (the Act) by the 3^rd respondent/insurer in O.P.(MV) No.1996/2014 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 16/05/2019. The respondents herein are the claimants and respondents 1 and 2 respectively in the petition. In this appeal, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition.

2. The claimants are the wife, minor children and the mother of deceased Sasikumar. According to the claimants, on 10/08/2014 at 05:30 a.m., Sasikumar was walking through the western side of the Kodungallur-Chavakad NH-17 public road from south to north. When he reached the place by name Thalikkulam Puthanthodu, a car bearing registration No.KL-40-478, driven by the second respondent knocked him down. Sasikumar sustained a head injury to which he succumbed.

3. The first respondent, the owner of the offending car and the second respondent-driver remained ex parte.

4. The 3^rd respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the existence of a valid policy in respect of the offending vehicle. It was contended that there was no negligence on the part of the second respondent and that the accident was due to the negligence of the deceased. It was also contended that the compensation claimed was quite excessive.

5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A13 were marked on the side of the claimant/petitioner. No documentary evidence was produced by the 3^rd respondent.

6. The Tribunal on a consideration of the documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the 2^nd respondent-driver of the offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of Rs.18,96,435/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the 3^rd respondent/insurer has come up in appeal.

7. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court.

8. Heard both sides

9. The Award is challenged by the appellant/insurer on the following grounds :-

According to the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer, in the light of Ext.A12 the Tribunal erred in fixing the age of the deceased as 50. Ext.A12, copy of the passport of the deceased shows that the deceased at the time of the incident was 52 years old. The fact that the deceased was 52 years is not disputed by the learned counsel for the claim petitioners. Hence in the light of the dictum in Pranay Sethi, 2017 (5) KHC 350 : (2017) 16 SCC 680, the addition to be made to the established income while calculating loss of dependency will be 10%. The Multiplier 11 applied by the Tribunal is not disputed by either side. The claimants are admittedly the legal heirs of the deceased. As there are four dependents, 1/4^th will have to be deducted from the income towards personal living expenses of the deceased. Therefore, towards loss of dependency, compensation to be awarded will be [Notional income Rs.12,000 +(10% of 12,000 ) = Rs.13,200. Rs.13200 - (13200x ¼) = Rs.9900/- x 12 x 11 = Rs.13,06,800/-].

10. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent/insurer that the Tribunal went wrong in granting compensation for loss of love and affection as well as loss of consortium, which is against settled precedents and therefore, the impugned Award is required