Permanent employees in motor accident claims are entitled to a 50% addition for future prospects. Appellate courts may adjust compensation heads to ensure awards are just, reasonable, and consistent with established legal mandates regarding dependency, consortium, and loss of love and affection.

JUDGMENT :

Shoba Annamma Eapen, J.

This appeal is filed by the claimants in OP (MV) No.429 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondent herein is the second respondent before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimants, on 29.01.2017 at about 09.30 p.m., while the deceased was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-40/F-540 through Pazhamthottam – Vadavucode road, a car bearing registration No.KL-43/8307 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motorcycle and as a result, the deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries on 07.02.2017, while undergoing treatment. The claimants who are the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.88,00,000/-, which is limited to Rs.70,00,000/-.

3. Though notice was served on the first respondent, driver-cum-owner, he remained absent and was set ex parte before the tribunal. The second respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the insurance policy, disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A17 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, found that the accident was due to negligence on the part of the first respondent and the claimant was awarded a sum of Rs.50,58,911/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization against the second respondent insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, have come up in appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned standing counsel for the respondent insurer.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants claim enhancement mainly under the following heads:

I. Notional Income/Loss of dependency The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that, though the tribunal fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased, who was employed in a private company, at Rs.23,108/-, as a permanent employee, it added only 40% towards future prospects instead of 50%. It was further submitted that the employer of the deceased was examined as PW1 and had deposed that the deceased was a permanent employee. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the claimants, the tribunal ought to have added 50% towards future prospects instead of 40%.

The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company, however, submitted that the deceased was working in a private establishment and there is no other document other than the deposition of the employer that the deceased was a permanent employee.

Considering the aforesaid facts, the deposition of PW1 that the deceased was an employee and he had also deposed about the prospects of the deceased employee if in employment, I find that the deceased can be considered as a permanent employee and following the apex court decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)], I find it appropriate to add 50% towards future prospects to the income fixed, and accordingly, the monthly income for the purpose of awarding compensation under the head loss of dependency is re-fixed at Rs.34,662/- ( Rs.23,108 x 50/100 + 23,108). Since the deceased was aged 30 years at the time of accident, the multiplier to be adopted is “17 ” and the deduction towards his personal and living expenses is 1/4 as there were four dependents. Hence, following the apex court judgments in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], the total comp