The court emphasized the need for just compensation in motor accident claims, ensuring that notional income and loss of consortium are assessed reasonably based on evidence and established legal principles.

JUDGMENT :

C.S. SUDHA, J.

1. These appeals have been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) by the claim petitioners in O.P.(MV) Nos.1630 & 1648 of 2014 respectively on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mavelikara, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by the common Award dated 24/08/2019. The respondents in MACA No.232/2020 are respondents 1 to 3 respectively in the petition and the sole respondent in MACA No.351/2020 is the third respondent/insurer in the petition. In these appeals, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petitions.

2. The claim petitioners in OP(MV) No.1630/2014 are the husband and sons of deceased Jayalekshmi and the sole claim petitioner in OP(MV) No.1648/2014 is the husband of late Jayalekshmi. According to the claim petitioners, on 13/08/2014 at about 09:30 a.m., while the deceased and her husband were travelling in scooter bearing registration no.KL31A5082 through Mannar-Mavelikara public road and when they reached in front of Surya Harwares south of Koyikka mukku, bus bearing registration no.KL33D7093 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner dashed against their scooter, as a result of which they sustained grievous injuries. Though the deceased was immediately taken to the hospital, she succumbed to the injuries sustained. A sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- was claimed by the petitioners in O.P(MV) No.1630/2014 and a sum of Rs. 22,00,000/- was claimed by the petitioner in O.P(MV) No.1648/2014 as compensation under various heads.

3. The first respondent/driver and the second respondent/owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte.

4. The third respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the existence of a valid policy in respect of the offending vehicle. It was contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claim petitioner in OP(MV) No.1648/2014. The age, occupation etc. of the deceased and her husband were disputed. 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 A25 and Ext.X1 were marked on the side of the claim petitioners. No documentary evidence was adduced by the third respondent/insurer.

6. The Tribunal on consideration of the documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the first respondent/driver of the offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of Rs. 9,65,250/- in OP(MV) No.1630/2014 and Rs. 14,52,630/- in OP(MV) No.1648/2014 together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the claim petitioners have come up in appeals.

7. The only point that arises for consideration in these appeals 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 of compensation by the Tribunal under the following heads is challenged by the claim petitioners.

OP (MV) No. 1630/2014 (MACA No. 232/2020)

Notional income

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioners that the deceased, aged 43 years, was working as Manager in the agency of her husband and was earning an amount of Rs. 12,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal has fixed the notional income only at Rs. 6,000/- which is quite low and hence needs to be enhanced. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that the amount that has been fixed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable an