Compensation for deceased housewives should reflect reasonable income estimations, applying relevant legal principles for future prospects and personal deductions.

JUDGMENT

[MACA.4219/2018, MACA.3474/2016] Dated this the 12th day of March, 2021 Both these appeals are arising from the award passed in O.P.(MV).No.100 of 2010 by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-I, Alappuzha. M.A.C.A.No.3474 of 2016 was filed by the Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation, whereas M.A.C.A.No.4219 of 2018 was filed by the claimants in the said petition, seeking enhancement of the compensation.

2. Parties herein are hereinafter referred to as per their status in the cause title of the claim petition.

3. The petitioners filed the above claim petition seeking compensation for the death of one Sajitha, who was a house wife aged 31 years, in a motor accident which occurred on 24.12.2008. The total claim of compensation put forward is Rs.10,62,750/-. The accident occurred when she was traveling in a car along with her family consist of husband and children, it hit against a tree on the side of the road. In the accident, the deceased as well as her husband died.

4. The Insurance Company appeared and filed a written statement admitting the coverage of policy; but disputed the liability on various grounds. The quantum of compensation was also seriously disputed. After the trial, the Tribunal passed an award allowing a total compensation of Rs.13,05,905/- and the 3rd respondent Insurance Company was directed to deposit the said amount along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Challenging the quantum of compensation, both the above appeals are filed.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the claim petitioners and also the counsel for the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company. The learned counsel for the claim petitioners contended that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side and on the other hand the learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the amount awarded is excessive. The dispute arising in these appeals are to be considered in the above circumstances. On going through the contents of the award, it is seen that the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal for the purpose of computing the compensation for loss of dependency was Rs.4,000/-. It is also discernible that the Tribunal made an addition of 50% of the monthly income towards future prospects, but no deduction is seen made towards personal expenses. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company mainly contended that, the addition of 50% is against the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court inNational Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [ (2017) 16 SCC 680 ] and similarly, lack of deduction towards personal expenses is also against the principles set out in the said judgment. In the light of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court inPranay Sethi’s case, the fixation of compensation towards loss of dependency is necessarily have to be re-worked. The crucial point to be taken into consideration while computing the compensation for loss of dependency is the monthly income of the deceased. The deceased was a house wife and going by the claim petition, no monthly income is seen claimed. However, this Court is of the opinion that a reasonable amount has to be taken as monthly income for a house wife by following the principles of law as set out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard. As per the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court inSyed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company [ (2014) 2 SCC 735 ] and Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd [ (2011) 13 SCC 236 ], the monthly income in this case can be reasonably fixed as Rs.6,500/- as against Rs.4,000/- fixed by the Tribunal. In the light of the principles laid down inPranay Sethi’s case, an addition of 50% is on higher side and the proper addition to be made is 40%. Similarly, no deduction towards personal expenses is also seen made. This Court is of the view that the compensation under the head of loss of dependency has to be re-worked by taking the revised