The court established that compensation for a fatal accident must reflect just and reasonable amounts based on assessed income, dependency, and established negligence, ensuring no double recovery.

J U D G M E N T Dated this the 5^th day of December, 2024 The appellants in M.A.C.A.2078/2015 are the petitioners in O.P(M.V)No.1301/2011 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam. The appellant in M.A.C.A. No.905/2015 is the 3^rd respondent therein. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal)

2. Petitioners are the wife, mother and minor children of deceased Biju R Nair, who died in a motor vehicle accident, that occurred on 19.06.2010. According to the petitioners, on the date of accident, the deceased was driving a Hyundai Santro car along the Kollam-Thiruvananthapuram National Highway from south to north direction and when he reached near Parippally Village OfÏce, a lorry bearing Reg.No. TN/75-B-1391 driven by the 2^nd respondent which came from the opposite direction dashed against his car, as a result of which he sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the very same day.

3. The 1^st respondent is the owner , the 2^nd respondent is the driver and the 3^rd respondent is the insurer of the o vehicle. According to the them, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, they filed the OP claiming a compensation of Rs.1,84,60,000/-.

4. The 1^st and 2^nd respondents remained ex-parte. The

3rd respondent/insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy and disputing the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. It was further contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased.

5. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimonies of PW1 to PW4 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A18 and Ext.X1 to X5 from the side of the petitioners. No evidence was adduced by the respondents.

6. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,30,93,240/-.

7. Aggrieved by the above award, the 3^rd respondent insurance company filed M.A.C.A.No.905/2015 and the petitioners filed M.A.C.A.No.2078/2015.

8. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following:

Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.

9. Heard Sri.Mathews Jacob, learned standing counsel for the insurance company and Sri.A.N.Santhosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

10. The Point: In this case the accident and valid policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. Though in the written statement the 3^rd respondent has contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased, at the time of arguments such a contention was not taken. The petitioners produced Ext.A2, copy of the charge sheet involved in the crime registered against the driver of the offending vehicle, in respect to the above accident. In the light of the above charge sheet, negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle stands proved. Therefore, the 3rd respondent, being the insurer, is liable to indemnify the compensation, which is liable to be awarded against the owner of the offending vehicle.

11. One of the arguments raised by the learned Senior Counsel is that the income of the deceased arrived at by the Tribunal at Rs.71,418/- is without sufÏcient evidence. In the claim petition, the income claimed by the petitioners was only Rs.52,500/- and in spite of the same, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.71,418/- and the same is erroneous. Another argument advanced by the learned Senior Counsel is towards the future prospects, instead of 40%, the Tribunal has taken 50%. It is further submitted that the Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection, which are on the higher side.