Compensation for death in motor vehicle accidents must consider established income, future prospects, and appropriate legal precedents regarding heads of compensation.

This appeal arises from an Award dated 27.04.2017 in O.P. (MV) No.319 of 2011 on the files of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -IV, Thiruvananthapuram. Appellant Insurance Company was the 3rd respondent in the said O.P.(M.V.).

Respondents 1 to 3 herein were the petitioners in the O.P.(M.V.).

They were the wife, daughter and mother respectively of P.Vijayakumar who died in the accident. The 3rd respondent mother died during the pendency of the M.A.C.A. and the 1 st and 2 nd respondents were recorded as the legal representatives of the deceased 3rd respondent.

Facts in Brief:

2. Deceased P.Vijayakumar, aged 49 years, at the time of his death, was a document writer and drama artist by avocation.

On 26.03.2010, at about 05.30 P.M., while he was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-01/AJ-4286 from Kovalam to Balaramapuram, a tourist bus bearing Reg.No.KL-45/4748 driven by the 2nd respondent in the O.P.(M.V.) came from the opposite direction and collided against the motorcycle. Vijayakumar was thrown out on to the road and he sustained injuries. He underwent treatment from 26.03.2010 to 06.04.2010 at Ananthapuri Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, and succumbed to injuries on 06.04.2010. His wife, daughter and mother filed the above OP (MV) seeking a compensation of Rs.47,00,000/- alleging that the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the tourist bus which was owned by the 1st respondent and driven by the 2nd respondent in the O.P.(M.V). The appellant herein, viz., the insurer of the tourist bus was arrayed as the 3rd respondent in the O.P.(M.V).

Proceedings before the Tribunal:

3. The owner-cum-insured and the driver, viz., the 1 st and 2 nd respondents in the O.P.(M.V.) remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The appellant Insurance Company filed a written statement admitting the insurance policy of the tourist bus as valid and subsisting during the relevant time. Appellant, however, contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle on which the deceased was a pillion rider.

Appellant also challenged the amount of compensation sought under various heads and sought dismissal of the O.P.(M.V). The Tribunal framed three charges and the parties went to trial on the same. No oral evidence was adduced by either side. Respondents marked Exts.A1 to A22 documents while no documents were marked from the side of the appellant Insurance Company.

Award of the Tribunal:

4. The Tribunal vide Award dated 27.04.2017 held that the respondents are allowed to realize an amount of Rs.25,32,400/- with interest @ 9% with proportionate cost from the appellant. The said Award is challenged by the appellant in this M.A.C.A.

5. Heard Sri.Mathews Jacob, learned Senior Advocate instructed by Sri.P.Jacob Mathew, learned counsel appearing for the appellant - Insurance Company and Sri.Amal Darshan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

Appellant’s contentions in brief:

●Tribunal overlooked the contention of contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle on which deceased P.Vijayakumar was the pillion rider. It ought to have fixed some contributory negligence on the said driver.

●The Tribunal erred in arriving at the notional monthly income as Rs.15,000/-. The documents produced to prove the occupation and the monthly income of the deceased were unreliable.

●Ext.A18 statement of the account does not reveal the monthly salary payment. It only shows that the deceased used to deposit an amount of not less than Rs.15,000/- regularly in the Bank.

●The Tribunal erred in not deducting any amounts towards income tax after taking Rs.19,500/- as monthly income.

●Tribunal erred in awarding an amount of Rs.20,000/- under the head of pain and suffering as compensation under the said head can be granted only in the case of injury and not in cases of death [( United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others (2020 SCC Online SC