The court reaffirmed the principles for calculating compensation for loss of dependency, ensuring future income prospects and correct multipliers are applied.

JUDGMENT ….

This appeal is filed by the 3rd respondent in OP(MV)

No.2351/2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur.

2. The said claim petition was submitted by the respondents

1 to 3 herein, seeking compensation for the death of one Raghuram in a motor accident that occurred on 14.04.2012. The 1st and 2nd respondents herein are the parents of the deceased, and the 3rd respondent is his brother. According to the claimants, the accident occurred when a motorcycle ridden by the deceased was hit by a Tempo Traveler bearing registration No.KL-35-C-3501, driven by the 5th respondent herein, owned by the 4th respondent and insured with the appellant herein. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged 23 years and was working as a journalist with a monthly income of Rs.15,000/- and he was about to be appointed as a Staff reporter with a revised scale of pay of Rs.17,500/-. The claim petition was submitted in such circumstances. The total compensation claimed by the claimants was Rs.40 lakhs.

3. The 1st and 2nd respondents in the claim petition, who are respondents 4 and 5 herein, were set ex parte. The appellant submitted a written statement admitting the coverage of policy in respect of the vehicle but disputed the liability on various grounds. The negligence and quantum of compensation were also seriously disputed by them.

4. In support of the claim, PW1 was examined from the side of the claimants and Exhibits A1 to A16 were marked. From the side of the appellant, Exhibits B1 and B2 were marked. After appreciating the materials placed on record, the Tribunal came to a finding that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 5th respondent herein and being the Insurer of the said vehicle, the appellant was held liable to pay the compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.29,10,000/- and the appellant was directed to deposit the said amount along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs. This appeal is submitted by the Insurance Company being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The claimants have filed a Cross Objection seeking enhancement of compensation.

5. Heard Smt. Latha Susan Cheriyan, the learned counsel for the appellant and A.R. Nimod, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3.

6. The main contention put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head of loss of dependency is very high and irrational. It is pointed out that, to compute the compensation under the said head, the Tribunal had taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.17,500/- which is not proper. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 would oppose the same.

7. After considering the materials placed on record, I find that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal is not acceptable. It is evident that the Tribunal, while fixing the said monthly income, relied on the evidence of PW1 and Exhibit A16 certificate. It is discernible from the evidence that the deceased at the relevant time was working as a trainee reporter in “New Indian Express Daily” and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.15,000/-. He also stated that, upon completion of training, he was about to be appointed as a staff reporter with a monthly income of Rs.17,500/-. He further states that, if he was alive, he would have drawn a minimum salary of Rs.60,000/- by the time the PW1 was examined. Thus, it is evident that, at the time of the death, the deceased was about to be posted as a staff reporter with a monthly salary of Rs.17,500/- and the future prospects of the said employment were also evident from his deposition, as it extends to the monthly salary of Rs.60,000/-. In such circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the finding entered by the Tribunal in fi