The court clarified the joint liability of vehicle owner and driver for compensation and established principles for assessing damages in fatal accident claims.

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) has been filed by the second claimant in O.P. (MV)No.528/2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punalur, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 21/11/2013. The respondents herein are the first and the third claimants and the respondents before the Tribunal. The parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition.

2. The facts of the case as stated in the petition in brief, are as follows - On 16/04/2004 at 06:30 p.m, deceased Unnikrishnan was riding a motor bike bearing Registration No.KL-3K/934 from Avaneeswaram to Thiruvananthapuram through Kottarakara – Thiruvananthapuram M.C.road, and when he reached near Vamanapuram Bridge, bike bearing registration No.KL-02P/5310 ridden by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner had a head on collision with the bike driven by the deceased as a result of which the latter was thrown on to the road whereby he sustained injuries including severe head injuries, to which he succumbed. The claimants are the legal heirs and the dependents of the deceased. The first respondent, the registered owner of the offending bike and the second respondent, the rider of the bike, are jointly and severally liable to compensate the claimants. Hence, an amount of ₹7 lakhs was claimed as compensation under various heads.

3. Respondents 1 and 2 filed written statement denying any negligence on the part of the second respondent. The accident occurred when the deceased in a reckless manner attempted to overtake a K.S.R.T.C bus. The deceased did not have a valid driving license.

4. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A8 were marked on the side of the claimants. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the respondents.

5. The Tribunal on a consideration of the documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the second respondent resulting in the accident and hence awarded an amount of ₹5,39,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation and costs from the first respondent owner of the offending bike and his assets.

Aggrieved, the second claimant has come up in appeal.

6. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the second claimant/appellant (the claimant). Though notice was duly served to all the respondents, none appeared for them.

8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claimant that though the Tribunal has found that the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent rider of the motor bike, he has not been jointly and severally made liable along with the first respondent, the owner of the vehicle, to pay the compensation that has been awarded. This is incorrect and hence requires to be interfered with. On going through the impugned award, I find that the Tribunal has found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent.

The first respondent is admittedly the owner of the vehicle. That being the position, and in the light of the fact that there is no insurance policy for the offending vehicle, the first and the second respondents are held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation ordered.

9. The impugned award is challenged by the claimant on the following grounds- Notional Income – It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claimant that the amount of ₹4,500/- fixed is too low and therefore the said finding requires interference. In this case, the deceased, the husband of the first claimant and the father of the second claimant is stated to have been a photographer. They claimed that his income was ₹10,000/- per month. However, no evidence was let in to substantiat