JUDGMENT

Dated this the 25th day of March, 2024 MACA No.1483 of 2016 is filed by the 3rd respondent, who was the insurer of the offending vehicle against the award passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vatakara (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

2. Cross Objectors are claimants who are none other than the legal representatives of one Mr.Muhammed, who died due to the injuries sustained in a motor accident occurred on 23.10.2012. The quantum of compensation stood awarded by the Tribunal is under challenge in the appeal as well as in the cross objection.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this appeal will hereinafter be referred to as petitioners 1 to 4 and respondents 1 to 3 in accordance with their status in the Original Petition.

4. According to the 3rd respondent, the Tribunal has overlooked the directions issued by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)] while calculating compensation payable to the petitioners. According to him, that being the context, interference is warranted to reassess the compensation in tune with the directions of the Apex Court.

5. According to the Cross Objectors, the monthly income of the deceased was fixed by the Tribunal as `5,000/-. According to them, the motor accident being occurred in the year 2012, the Tribunal ought to have taken a higher sum than `5,000/- as the monthly income and calculated compensation on its basis.

6. The motor accident in the case on hand was occurred at about 8.45 pm on 23.10.2012. One Mr.Muhammed was travelling as pillion rider in a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL 56 D 3891 and a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL 18 C 4372 dashed against and thereby he sustained serious injuries. He was rushed to Baby Memorial Hospital, Calicut for treatment, but he succumbed to the injuries during the course of treatment. Postmortem examination of his body was conducted at Medical college Hospital, Calicut. Alleging that the motor accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of motorcycle bearing Registration No. KL 18 C 4372 by its rider and claiming a total sum of `20,00,000/- as compensation, the above Original Petition was filed by his legal representatives before the Tribunal.

7. The registered owner of the motorcycle, its rider and it’s insurer were arrayed as respondents 1 to 3 in the Original Petition. All respondents were served with notice from the Tribunal, but 1st and 2nd respondents did not turn up to contest the Original Petition and were declared as ex parte.

8. 3rd respondent filed written statement admitting issuance of a valid policy for the motorcycle bearing Registration No. KL 18 C 4372 covering the date of the motor accident. The claim of the petitioners regarding the age, the occupation and the monthly income of the deceased at the relevant time were denied. Compensation claimed is also disputed for it’s exorbitance.

9. Petitioners have adduced documentary evidence as Exts.A1 to A9 series and the 3rd respondent as Ext.B1. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Tribunal arrived at a finding that the motor accident in question was occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle bearing Registration No. KL 18 C 4372 by its rider, who was arrayed as the 2nd respondent. The Tribunal also found that the petitioners on account of the death of Mr.Muhammed in the motor accident are entitled to get compensation. A sum of `8,50,000/- was arrived at as the compensation payable. The 3rd respondent insurer was directed to deposit the same with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Petition till the date of realisation. Proportionate costs was also ordered.

10. The monthly income of the deceased fixed by the Tribunal as `5,000/- is too low when compared to the cost of living and price index prevalent in the year 2012. Even in the case of a coolie worker, the Apex Court had fixed `4,500/- as the monthly income in the year 2004 (Ra