The judgment clarifies how to calculate compensation for motor accident claims, emphasizing accurate income determination and the principle of subrogation in deducting reimbursed medical expenses.

JUDGMENT

M.A.C.A.No.2349/2013 is an appeal filed by the additional petitioners 2 to 5 in O.P. (M.V) No.1149/2007 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad challenging award dated 06.06.2013 in the above case, on the ground of insufficiency of compensation. 2. Whereas, M.A.C.A. No.85/2014 is one filed by the original 3rd respondent, the Insurance Company, challenging the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal on the ground that the same is excessive on some heads.

3. Heard both sides.

4. Brief facts of the case:

One Sajith Chandran died in consequence of a motor accident occurred on 16.11.2006 at 10:30 p.m. when he was hit down by a bus bearing registration no.KL-25/369 driven by the original 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner when the above said Sajith Chandran was riding on his motor cycle. The above said Sajith Chandran sustained serious injuries and he underwent treatment thereafter. However, he died on 14.12.2007 in consequence of accidental injuries.

5. Initially above said Sajith Chandran filed O.P.(M.V) No.1149/2007 claiming compensation for the injuries. Thereafter his death, additional petitioners viz., wife, children and the mother got impleaded and the claim was enhanced to Rs.55 lakh.

6. The 3rd respondent, Insurance Company filed written statement. Policy to the bus was admitted. But quantum of compensation under various heads was disputed.

7. Tribunal went on trial. PW1 examined and Exts.A1 to A18 marked on the side of appellants. No evidence let in by the respondents. Exts.X1 to X5 also marked. The Tribunal appraised the evidence and finally granted Rs.42,70,264/- as compensation.

8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the monthly income taken by the Tribunal based on Ext.X2 certificate at Rs.21,804/- is wrong. According to the learned counsel, on reading Ext.X2 it is specifically stated therein that 'the expected revised salary' of Sri.Sajith Chandran as on 31.12.2007 would come to Rs.21,804/-. In fact, the Tribunal considered the income shown in Ext.X2 for the purpose of fixation of monthly income to assess the loss of dependency income. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that Ext.X5 produced in this case would go to show that the actual salary drawn by the deceased during November, 2007 would come to Rs.20,176/- only. According to the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, 50% addition was given towards future prospects in anticipation of increase in salary as per the ratio inNational Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi : (2017) 16 SCC 680 , since the deceased was aged below 50 years. Therefore, 50% addition to be made to the salary prevailing as on the date of accident or death. Therefore, the learned counsel canvassed to re-fix the monthly income at Rs.20,176/-. Though the learned counsel for the Insurance Company highlighted deductions other than tax, I do not think that such deductions are permissible since the settled law is that tax alone is liable to be reduced.

9. Whereas, the learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the Tribunal fixed Rs.21,804/- as salary based on Ext.X2 in anticipation of the same and, therefore, reduction there from cannot be justified.

10. I have gone through Exts.X2 and X5 to resolve the controversy. Ext.X2 would go to show that salary of Sri.Sajith Chandran was Rs.21,804/- and the same was calculated as 'expected revised salary'. Whereas, Ext.X5 would go to show that during November, 2007 the salary of the Sajith Chandran was Rs.20,176/-. In fact Rs.20,176/- the actual salary on the date of accident to be fixed as the monthly income to workout the loss of dependency income and it is ordered accordingly.

20176+50% = 30264 – 10% = 27,238/-

11. Regarding the age as well as the multiplier, there is no dispute in between the parties. However, it is specifically pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal wrongly deducted 1/ rd towards

3 the perso