Compensation for loss of dependency, consortium, and love was enhanced based on established precedents; negligence was affirmed by the Tribunal.

JUDGMENT :

C.S. SUDHA, J.

These appeals under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (the Act) have been filed by the third respondent/insurer and the claim petitioners respectively in O.P.(MV) No.1057/2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery (the Tribunal) aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 18/07/2019. The respondents in MACA No.213/2020 are the claim petitioners and the respondents in MACA No.1980/2021 are the respondents respectively in the original petition. In these appeals, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition.

2. The claim petitioners are the parents and siblings of the deceased. According to the claim petitioners, on 25/12/2013 at about 06:20 p.m., while the deceased was riding motorbike bearing registration No.KL-13-U-2468 from Kannur to Kuthuparamba, bus bearing registration No.KL-13-Q-6856 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries to which he succumbed. A sum of Rs.15,00,000/- was claimed as compensation under various heads.

3. The first respondent/owner and the second respondent/driver filed written statements admitting the existence of a valid policy for the offending bus, but denying negligence on the part of the second respondent/driver. They also contended that the amount claimed was excessive.

4. The third respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the policy, but denying liability. The age, occupation and income were disputed. It was also contended that the amount claimed was excessive.

5. Before the Tribunal, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A8 were marked on the side of the claim petitioners. No oral evidence was adduced by the side of the respondents. Exts.B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the third respondent.

6. The Tribunal on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the second respondent/driver of the bus resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of Rs.25,70,200/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. Aggrieved by the Award, the third respondent/insurer and 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.

MACA No.213/2020

Notional income

9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that the monthly income of Rs.18,000/- fixed by the Tribunal is on the higher side and hence the same needs to be appropriately reduced. It was also pointed out that the case in the petition is that the deceased was a receptionist in Hotel Central Avenue, Kannur. However, when PW1 was examined, his case was that the deceased was Account Manager of the hotel. It was also pointed out that the salary certificate of the deceased has also not been produced. Therefore, it was pointed out that the evidence on record is not satisfactory to establish the claim regarding the income of the deceased and therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.18,000/-. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioners that Exts.A1 to A3 and the testimony of PW1 establish the income of the deceased and therefore the Tribunal was justified in fixing the income as such and therefore no interference into the same is called for.

10. It is true that PW1, Manager, Administration, Hotel Central Avenue