JUDGMENT

The appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, which is the

2nd respondent in the O.P(M.V) No. 178 of 2016 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad.

2. The claim petition was submitted by respondents 1 and

2 herein, who are the daughters of one Muthammal, who died due to the injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 04.10.2015. The accident occurred when a motorcycle bearing registration No.TN-41/AC-3184 ridden by the 1st respondent in the claim petition in a rash and negligent manner knocked down her while she was walking through the road. Consequent to the injuries, she died on 30.10.2015.

3. The appellant resisted the claim petition by filing a written statement wherein they disputed the negligence. However, they accepted the coverage of the policy of the said vehicle. The tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle and being the insurer, the liability was imposed upon the appellant. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.9,15,786/- and the said amount was directed to be deposited by the appellant herein with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. This appeal is filed challenging the quantum of compensation awarded.

4. Heard Sri. George A Cherian the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. P.R. Venkatesh, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.

5. The main contest in this appeal pertains to the quantum of compensation. It is seen that the tribunal, for calculating the compensation for dependency, took the monthly income as Rs.10,000/- and applied the parameters as per the stipulations contained in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680]. Thus, an amount of Rs.7,20,036/- has been awarded under the head of loss of dependency. The main challenge in this case pertains to the monthly income taken. Of course it is true that no proper evidence was adduced in this regard to substantiate the monthly income. However, even in the absence of any evidence, the monthly income of Rs.10,000/- cannot be treated as unreasonable for the year 2015. This is particularly because, the usual method, that is adopted for computing the monthly income is based on the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd [(2011) 13 SCC 236], and Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company [(2014) 2 SCC 735] as per which, the basic monthly income has to be fixed as Rs.4,500/- for year 2004 and to determine the compensation for the subsequent years, an addition of Rs.500/- per year has been added. If such a method of computation is adopted, the monthly income of Rs.10,000/- as fixed by the tribunal appears to be reasonable. Therefore, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the quantum of compensation. Of course it is true that under the head of funeral expenses, an excess amount of Rs.10,000/- was granted. However, it is seen that no amount was granted by the Tribunal towards loss of estate. Therefore, when the total amount awarded by the tribunal is taken into consideration, I do not find any justifiable reasons to interfere with the award.

In such circumstances, I do not find any merit in this appeal and accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.