Compensation for death in motor accidents must reflect the deceased's earning capacity and future prospects, ensuring just and reasonable awards.

JUDGMENT :

1. These appeals have been filed by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and Special District Judge, Salem, in the judgment dated 16.08.2021 made in M.C.O.P.Nos.1005 and 1006 of 2015 respectively.

2. The brief facts of the case is that on 22.12.2014 at about 10.00 a.m., the deceased Alamelu (M.C.O.P.No.1005 of 2015) and the deceased Poornima (M.C.O.P.No.1006 of 2015) were travelling as passengers in a bus in Salem to Namakkal Main Road near Sanhiyur Branch Road West of Ponnusamy Thottam. At that time, the lorry bearing Registration No.TN 29 AK 6428 which came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner hit against the centre media of the road and hit the bus in which the deceased travelled, due to which, the deceased lost their lives.

3. Thereafter, the dependants of the deceased filed claim petitions before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.20 Lakhs each. After adjudication, the Tribunal, awarded a sum of Rs.9,29,000/- and Rs.8,41,000/- respectively, with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization and proportionate cost and directed the second respondent Insurance Company to pay the compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the injured claimants have filed these appeals seeking enhancement of compensation.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/ claimants submitted that at the time of accident, the deceased were 35 years and 22 years respectively, at the time of accident and they were earning more than Rs.10,000/- per month, however, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- which is very meagre and further submitted that as per the ratio laid down in the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Varma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. 2009 (2) L.S. 29 (SC), the Tribunal ought to have fixed a sum of Rs.12,000/- as the notional income of the deceased and further submitted that the compensation awarded under the other heads are also very very meagre and hence the petitioners are entitled for enhancement in compensation.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal after considering all the factual aspects, awarded the compensation which is just and reasonable and hence, the impugned judgment warrants no interference.

6. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants claimants as well as the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent Insurance Company and perused the materials available on record.

7. The accident and the manner in which the accident happened are not disputed. These appeals have been filed only questioning the quantum of compensation. Hence, there is no need for any discussion with regard to negligence aspect.

8. In M.C.O.P.No.1005 of 2015 [C.M.A.No.3599 of 2021], the Tribunal after elaborately discussing the factual aspects awarded a sum of Rs.7,84,000/- for loss of income, Rs.80,000/- for loss of love and affection, Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs.25,000/- for funeral expenses and arrived at a total compensation of Rs.9,29,000/-with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.

9. The accident is of the year 2014. Hence, this Court fix a sum of Rs.12,000/- as the monthly notional income of the deceased and 1/4 of the amount has to be deducted towards personal expenses. The deceased was aged 35 years at the time of death. Hence, the correct multiplier to be adopted is 15. If 40% of notional income is awarded for future prospects, the amount awarded for loss of income works out to Rs.22,68,000/- [Rs.12,000/- X 40% = Rs.4,800/-; Rs.12,000/- + Rs.4,800/- = Rs.16,800/-; Rs.16,800/- X 1/4 = Rs.4,200/-; Rs.16,800/- - Rs.4,200/- = Rs.12,600/-; Rs.12,600/- X 12 X 15 = Rs.22,68,000/-].

10. This Court is of the opinion that some amount has to be awarded for