The court reaffirmed that compensation claims should reflect just and reasonable amounts, aligning notional income assessments with established legal precedents in motor vehicle accident cases.

JUDGMENT :

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.608 & 684 of 2008 respectively on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Mavelikara, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by the common Award dated 26/11/2019. The respondents in both the appeals are respondents 1 to 3 respectively in the petition. In these appeals, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petitions.

2. According to the claim petitioners, on 06/10/2007 at 08:30 p.m., while the deceased and the claim petitioner in O.P. (MV) No.684/2008 were travelling in car bearing registration no.KL-2T-1061 driven by the first respondent through Alappuzha- Kollam NH 47 and when they reached Kayamkulam KSRTC bus stand, due to the rash and negligent driving of the latter, the car collided with lorry bearing registration no.KL-7L-7101, as a result of which they sustained grievous injuries. Though the deceased was immediately taken to the hospital, he succumbed to the injuries sustained. A sum of ₹ 6,00,000/- was claimed by the petitioners in O.P(MV) No.608/2008 and a sum of ₹ 5,00,000/- was claimed by the petitioner in O.P(MV) No.684/2008 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, but denied liability and negligence on the part of the first respondent/driver. It was contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the lorry driver. The age, occupation etc. of the deceased were disputed. It was also contended that the compensation claimed was quite excessive.

5. Before the Tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A19 were marked on the side of the claim petitioners. RW1 and RW2 were examined and Exts.B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the third respondent/insurer.

6. The Tribunal on consideration of the oral and 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 ₹ ₹ 5,53,800/- in OP(MV) No.608/2008 and 4,70,874/- in OP(MV) No.684/2008 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 appeal.

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 - MACA No.1107/2020 ( OP(MV) No. 608/2008) Notional income It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioners that the deceased, a 21-year-old barber, was earning ₹ 8,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal fixed the notional income at ₹ 3,000/- which is quite low going by the the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 13 SCC 236. Hence, the amount needs to be appropriately enhanced.

9.1. It is true that there are no materials to prove the income that is claimed in the petition. However, going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa (Supra), the notional income of the deceased can be fixed as ₹ 6,000/- Transportation.

10. The accident occurred on 06/10/2007. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that