The quantum of compensation awarded in a motor accident case should be reasonable and just, considering the deceased's income, multiplier, future prospects, and conventional heads of compensation.

Headnote:
MOTOR ACCIDENT - QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION - ENHANCEMENT - [The court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, considering the deceased's income, multiplier, future prospects, and conventional heads of compensation.]
Fact of the Case:

The appellants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the death of their son due to a bus accident. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,56,000/- with interest. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the appellants filed an appeal.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Tribunal erred in fixing the deceased's notional monthly income and in not awarding compensation under certain conventional heads. The court re-fixed the deceased's notional monthly income at Rs.7,000/- and awarded compensation under the heads of funeral expenses, loss of estate, loss of consortium, pain and sufferings, and bystander expenses.
Issues: 1. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was reasonable and just. 2. Whether the Tribunal erred in fixing the deceased's notional monthly income. 3. Whether the Tribunal erred in not awarding compensation under certain conventional heads.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the Supreme Court decisions in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited and Sarla Verma v Delhi Transport Corporation to fix the deceased's notional monthly income and multiplier. 2. The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Pranay Sethi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. to award compensation under the conventional heads of funeral expenses, loss of estate, loss of consortium, pain and sufferings, and bystander expenses.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of Rs.10,27,400/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

J U D G M E N T

The appellants were the petitioners in O.P (MV)

No.1300/2009 on the file of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. The respondents in the appeal were the respondents before the Tribunal.

2. The appellants had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the death of Premjith(deceased) – the son of the appellants 1 and 2 and the brother of the third appellant. It was their case that, on 05.02.2009, while the deceased was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-11-T-2462, when he reached S.K. Pottakkad road, a bus bearing registration No. KL-06-N-1600, driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle of the deceased. The deceased sustained serious injuries and was treated as an inpatient at the Baby Memorial Hospital, Kozhikode, for a period 53 days. He succumbed to the injuries on 28.03.2009. The deceased was aged only 22 years. He was the sole breadwinner of the family. He was working as a sales executive in ICICI Bank and as a LIC agent. He was earning a monthly income of Rs.13,017/-. The bus was owned by the first respondent and insured with the third respondent. Hence, the appellants claimed a total compensation of Rs.20,64,794/- from the respondents, which claim was limited to Rs.20,00,000/- 3. The respondents 1 and 2 did not contest the proceedings.

4. The third respondent had filed a written statement contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. The third respondent also disputed the age, income and occupation of the deceased.

5. The appellants produced and marked Exts.A1 to A9 in evidence. The respondents did not let in any evidence.

6. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, allowed the claim petition in part, by permitting the appellants to recover from the third respondent an amount of Rs.2,56,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation and cost of Rs.1,750/-.

7. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners are in appeal.

8. Heard; Smt. Rashmi K.V, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/petitioners and Sri. K.B. Ramanand, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent /insurer.

9. The question that emanates for consideration in this appeal is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and just.

Negligence and liability

10. The appellants had categorically averred in the claim petition that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the second respondent. They also produced Ext.A1 First Information Report(FIR) and A4 AMVI report in order to substantiate their assertion. The respondents did not controvert the pleading or discredit Exts. A1 and A4. The third respondent has also not proved that the first respondent had violated the insurance policy conditions. Therefore, the third respondent is to indemnify the liability of the first respondent arising out of the accident.

Income of the deceased

11. The appellants had claimed that the deceased was working as a senior sales executive in ICICI Bank and a LIC agent. To prove the above said pleading, they had produced Ext.A6 salary certificate and Ext.A7 statement of transaction. However, they did not examine the authors of the said certificates. The Tribunal, for the above said reason, fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,500/-.

12. In Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011) 13 SCC 236], the Honourable Supreme Court has fixed the notional income of a coolie worker in the year 2004 at Rs. 4500/- per month.

13. Following the yardstick in the afore-cited decision and considering the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2009, I re-fix the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/-.

Multiplier

14. It is undisputed that the deceased was aged

22 years at the ti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document