Judicial precedents in motor accident claims emphasize the necessity for fair compensation adjustment based on the deceased's profession and statutory norms.

JUDGMENT :

Shoba Annamma Eapen, J.

Spoke. The original judgment dated 02.03.2026 is recalled. I have heard both sides and the appeal is disposed of as follows:

2. This appeal has been filed by the claimants in OP(MV) No.453 of 2006 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

3. The case of the claimants was that on 03.12.2001, while the deceased was accompanying the dead body of his brother in an ambulance bearing Reg.No.KL-IN-1153 driven by the third respondent in a rash and negligent manner, the ambulance hit against a tree, whereby he sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The claimants, being the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.4,50,000/-.

4. The first respondent/owner of the offending vehicle filed a written statement, stating that the application is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The third respondent/driver of the offending vehicle remained ex parte before the tribunal. The second respondent/insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. It was also contended that there was violation of permit conditions. Exts.A1 to A8 & B1 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of Rs.2,12,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the second respondent being the insurer, as per the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Anjana Shyam and Others (2007 KHC 5637), and the first respondent/owner to satisfy the remaining award amount. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimants have come up in appeal.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants claims enhancement under the following heads:

6.1. Notional income - The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was a heavy vehicle driver by profession and was earning Rs.7,500/- per month, however, the tribunal has fixed the monthly income notionally only at Rs.2,500/-. The learned counsel for the appellant relies on Ext.A7 driving licence as well as Ext.A8 salary certificate issued by the employer. However, no evidence, other than production of the above documents, has been adduced by the appellants to prove the income or avocation of the deceased. On a perusal of Ext.A7 duplicate driving licence, it is seen that the deceased was having a valid licence to drive heavy vehicles. Even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236], for an accident that occurred in 2001, the monthly income of a coolie is fixed at Rs.3,000/-. Thus, considering the fact that the deceased was holding a licence to drive heavy vehicles, I deem it appropriate to refix the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/-.

6.2. Loss of dependency - As the monthly income of the deceased is refixed at Rs.5,000/-, compensation towards loss of dependency has to be recalculated. Since the deceased was in the age group of 50 to 60 years at the time of the accident, as per the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662(SC)], 10% of the notional income has to be added towards future prospects; and thus, the income would be Rs.5,500/- (5000 + 500).

6.2.1. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the tribunal adopted the multiplier “8” following the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, which is unsustainable. The learned counsel, relying on Annex.A certificate, which was produced along with IA No. 1