The main legal point established in the judgment is the modification of compensation based on established legal principles regarding determination of notional income, future prospects, and compensation for loss of love and affection.

Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation Appeal - The court modified the compensation awarded by the Tribunal based on the principles established in Ramachandrappa vs Manager, Royal Sundaram Allian Co.Ltd and National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi.
Fact of the Case:

The appeal was filed by the claimant aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal. The deceased suffered fatal injuries in a road accident, and the claimants sought compensation.
Finding of the Court:

The court found negligence on the part of the first respondent and modified the compensation based on established legal principles.
Issues: The main issue was whether there was any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by the Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court modified the compensation based on the principles established in Ramachandrappa vs Manager, Royal Sundaram Allian Co.Ltd and National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, regarding the determination of notional income, future prospects, and compensation for loss of love and affection.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed in part by enhancing the compensation by a further amount, with interest and costs, and the third respondent/insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest and costs before the Tribunal within a specified period.

JUDGEMENT

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) has been filed by the claimant in O.P. (MV)No.642/2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 11/10/2018. The respondents herein are the respondents before the Tribunal. The parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition.

2. The petitioners are the parents, wife and child of Anil Kumar, the deceased. According to the petitioner, on 14/05/2017 at about 08:30 am, while Anil Kumar was riding his scooter bearing registration No.KL-52/J-4728 through Koottanad- Amakkavu public road, a tipper lorry bearing registration No.KL- 52/L-2260 driven by the first respondent, in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down. Anilkumar suffered fatal injuries and though he was rushed to the hospital, he succumbed to the injuries on the same day. The first respondent driver; the second respondent owner and the third respondent insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to compensate the petitioner. Hence the petitioners claimed an amount of ₹25 lakhs as compensation under various heads.

3. The first and the second respondents jointly and the third respondent separately filed written statement denying any negligence on the part of the first respondent. The third respondent admitted that the offending vehicle had a valid insurance policy at the time of the incident.

4. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A6 were maked on the side of the petitioners. No documentary evidence was produced 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 first respondent resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹10,14,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved, the petitioners have 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 both sides.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners relying on the dictum in Ramachandrappa vs Manager, Royal Sundaram Allian Co.Ltd, (2011) 13 SCC 236 submitted that the notional income of the deceased fixed at ₹7,000/- by the Tribunal is incorrect. In the aforesaid decision, the monthly income of a coolie in the year 2004 was taken as ₹4,500/-. In the case on hand also the victim is a coolie. The incident took place in the year

2017. Therefore, the argument is that the notional income fixed needs to be enhanced based on Ramachandrappa ( Supra ).

There is certainly force in the submission made. Hence, based on the dictum in Ramachandrappa ( Supra ), the notional income is fixed at ₹ 11,000 /- per month.

9. It is brought to my notice that the determination of income while computing compensation has to include future prospects also but the same has not been done by the Tribunal on which account also, the award needs to be interfered with. As per the dictum in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , in case the deceased was self employed an addition of 40% of the established income should be given when the deceased was below the age of 40 years. Here the petitioner was 35 years at the time of the incident. Therefore, 40% of ₹11,000/- comes to ₹4,400/-. Hence the total income would come to ₹15,400/-.

10. It is also brought to my notice that no compensation has been awarded towards 'loss of consortium' or 'loss of love and affection' and hence based on the dictum in Pranay Sethi ( Supra ) compensation at the rate of ₹40,000/- is required to be granted.

On going through the impugned award, it is seen that towards compensation for loss of love and affection to the child, ₹

Click Here to Read the rest of this document