The court reassessed compensation for a motor accident death, adjusting the monthly income and applying established principles for future prospects, resulting in a total compensation of Rs.9,29,400/-.

JUDGMENT

This appeal was filed by the claimants in O.P.(M.V.) No.306/2008 on the files of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor. The said claim petition was filed seeking compensation for the death of one Joy James in a motor accident that occurred on 28.01.2008. During the pendency of this appeal, the fourth appellant died, and the legal heirs of the fourth appellant were impleaded as the additional appellants 6 and 7 and additional respondents 4 and 5 herein.

2. The accident occurred when the bus driven by the deceased was hit by a lorry Registration No.KL 7 AF 1731 driven by the 2^nd respondent, owned by the 1^st respondent and was insured with the 3^rd respondent herein. The deceased was aged 31 years at the time of the accident and was a driver with a monthly income of Rs.6,000/-. The claimants were wife, two minor children and the parents of the deceased. The claim petition was submitted in such circumstances.

3. The 3^rd respondent filed a written statement admitting the coverage of policy in respect of the lorry but disputed the liability on various grounds. They also disputed the negligence as well as the quantum of compensation.

4. The said claim petition was tried along with O.P.(M.V.) Nos.281/2008, 505/2008 and 555/2008. Evidence in this case consists of oral testimony of PW1 and as documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A21 were marked. From the side of the respondents, Ext.B1 was marked. After the trial, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 2^nd respondent, the driver of the lorry, and being the insurer of the lorry, the 3^rd respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.6,18,750/- and the said amount was directed to be deposited by the 3^rd respondent with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. This appeal is submitted in such circumstances seeking enhancement of compensation.

5. Heard Sri.K.M. Jamaludheen, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. Mathews Jacob, learned senior counsel, appearing for the 3^rd respondent Insurance Company.

6. The only dispute relates to the quantum of compensation awarded under the various heads. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is with respect to the amount awarded for loss of dependency. It is pointed out that the monthly income taken by the Tribunal was on the lower side and no addition was also made by the Tribunal towards future prospects. From the materials placed on record, I find force in the said contention. The monthly income taken by the Tribunal was Rs..4,000/- which appears to be on the lower side. According to the claimants, the deceased was working as a driver at the relevant time. The said aspect is evident from the records as at the relevant time the deceased was driving the bus. With regard to the monthly income, it is true that there are no documents produced to substantiate the same. However, when the method of computation evolved from the principles laid down by the honourable Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd [(2011) 13 SCC 236], and Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company [(2014) 2 SCC 735] is adopted, the monthly income of an ordinary worker even in the absence of any evidence can be fixed as Rs.4,500/- in respect of an accident occurred in the year 2004. The usual method that is adopted for determining the monthly income for the subsequent years is to make an addition of Rs.5,00/- per year. When that method of computation is adopted, the monthly income in respect of an accident occurred in the year 2008 can be reasonably fixed as Rs.6,500/-. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company pointed out that the monthly income claimed was only Rs.6,000/-. However, I am of the view that, merely because the amount of Rs.6,000/- alone was claimed as the monthly income that would not preclude this Court in taking a higher monthly