The court reaffirmed the principle of just compensation must consider the deceased's income and future prospects, enhanced according to established legal precedents in motor vehicle accident claims.

JUDGMENT

The appellants were the petitioners 1 to 5 in OP (MV)

495/2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur. The sixth petitioner in the claim petition is no more. The respondents 1 to 3 were the respondents in the claim petition. The parties are, for the sake of convenience, referred to as per their status in the claim petition.

2. The petitioners had filed the claim petition under Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act'), claiming compensation on account of the death of one Matharambath Kunhimohammed (deceased) – the late husband of the first petitioner, father of petitioners 2 to 5 and son of the sixth petitioner.

3. The concise case of the petitioners in the claim petition, relevant for determination of appeal, is that on

17.2.2008, while the deceased was travelling in a motor cycle bearing registration No.KL-10/M-6552 through Thrissur – Kozhikode National Highway when he reached the Chelambra Junction in Kakancheri, a bus bearing registration No.KL-46-3009 (offending vehicle) driven in a rash and negligent manner by the second respondent, hit the motor cycle of the deceased. The deceased fell on the road and was dragged for some distance. He sustained serious injuries. He was taken to the Red Crescent Hospital, Chungam and, thereafter, referred to the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. However, he unfortunately passed away on the same day. The deceased was a cook in a hotel. He was the sole breadwinner of the family and was earning Rs.200/- per day from his employment. The petitioners were fully depending on the income of the deceased. The petitioners have no job or avocation. The accident occurred solely due to the negligence on the part of the second respondent, who drove the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The offending vehicle was owned by the first respondent and insured with the third respondent.

Therefore, the respondents 1 to 3 were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners, which they quantified at Rs.16,70,000/-.

4. The respondents 1 and 2 did not contest the proceedings and were set ex parte.

5. The third respondent – Insurance Company – filed a written statement admitting that the offending vehicle was covered by a valid insurance policy. However, it was contended that the accident occurred due to the gross negligence on the part of the deceased, who rode the motor cycle in an inexperienced manner without observing the Rules and Regulations. Moreover, he was not holding a driving licence. Hence, the respondents prayed that the claim petition be dismissed.

6. The first petitioner was examined as PW1 and Exts A1 to A20 were marked through her in evidence. The respondents did not adduce any evidence.

7. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, by the impugned award allowed the claim petition, in part, by directing the third respondent to pay an amount of Rs.4,72,000/- to the petitioners with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation with costs of Rs.6,000/-.

8. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners 1 to 5 are in appeal.

9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent – Insurance Company.

10. The question that emanates for consideration in the appeal is whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and just.

11. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court inNational Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [ (2017) 16 SCC 680 ], has held that Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , deals with the concept of 'just compensation', and the same has to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standards. The conception of 'just compensation' has to be viewed through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and non-violation of the principle of equitability.

12.