JUDGMENT

Dated this the 28th day of February, 2024 The appeal on hand is filed by the 3rd respondent, the insurer of the offending vehicle involved in the motor accident and cross objection is filed by the respondents in the appeal on hand who are claimants before the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -I, Pathanamthitta (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 2. Challenge is raised by the appellant as well as the cross objectors against the quantum of compensation stood awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the respondents. The appellant is seeking for modification of the quantum of compensation by way of reduction and the cross objectors, by way of enhancement.

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

-:4:-

4. Before adverting to the contentions raised by the appellant and the cross objectors, this Court is inclined to have a discussion about the facts of the case in brief.

The motor accident in question was occurred at about 19.30 hrs. on 15.10.2011. One Mr.Praveen B. Nair was riding his motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL-25-A-581 from east to west through Pathanapuram-Adoor public road, and a lorry bearing Registration No.KL-07-G-6393 dashed against the motorcycle near IOC petrol outlet, Parakode and thereby he sustained serious injuries. While being transported to the hospital for treatment, Mr.Praveen B Nair succumbed to the fatal injuries received by him in the motor accident. Raising an allegation that the driver of the lorry was responsible for causing the motor accident by his rash and negligent driving and a claim for a sum of `1,00,000/- as compensation, the Original Petition was filed before the Tribunal. The driver, the registered owner and the -:5:-

insurer of the lorry bearing Registration No.KL-07-G-6393 were arrayed as respondents 1 to 3 in the Original Petition.

5. The Tribunal issued notice to all respondents but despite service of notice, 1st and 2nd respondents did not turn upto contest the Original Petition. Therefore, they were declared as ex parte. 3rd respondent entered appearance on receipt of notice from the Tribunal and filed a written statement admitting that a certificate of insurance was issued for the vehicle covering the date of accident but contending that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is exorbitant. The possession of driving licence by the 1st respondent and allegation of negligence against him were denied.

6. Exts.A1 to A7 were marked by the petitioners in evidence. 3rd respondent did not adduce any evidence. The Tribunal found on the basis of the evidence that the motor accident in question was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing Registration No.KL-07-G-6393, by its -:6:-

driver. The Tribunal also found that the petitioners being the legal heirs of the deceased Praveen B.Nair are entitled to get compensation for the loss sustained by them due to his death in the motor accident. Accordingly, a sum of `35,34,500/- was arrived at as the compensation payable and the 3rd respondent was directed to deposit the same infavour of the petitioners excluding amount if any, paid as interim compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Petition till the date of realisation and proportionate costs.

7. The argument mainly advanced by Sri.V.P.K.Panicker, the learned counsel for the insurer was that the Tribunal is unjustified in fixing `15,000/- as the monthly income of the deceased, on a notional basis. According to him, when viewed in the backdrop of the fixation of monthly income in the year 2004, for a coolie worker in Ramachandrappa vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011) 13 -:7:-

SCC 236], the monthly income fixed in the case on hand undoubtedly is on the higher side. Thus he sought for a re-

fixa