JUDGMENT

(Dated this the 16th day of June 2022)

Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in O.P. MV No.1681 of 2009 on the files of the MACT, Ernakulam, the petitioners therein, who are the wife and children of deceased Salim, filed this appeal.

2. On 24.12.2008 while the deceased Salim was travelling as a pillion rider in a motor cycle bearing reg.No.KL-7BF 550 through NGO Quarters- Palarivattom road and when reached at NGO quarters, a KSRTC bus bearing reg.No.KL-15/5183 driven by the 2nd respondent, in a rash and negligent manner, tried to overtake the motor cycle and the right side of the KSRTC bus hit on the motor cycle. As a result, Salim and the rider were thrown out and sustained serious injuries. On the way to hospital, Salim died. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC bus by the 2nd respondent. The first respondent is the owner of the KSRTC bus. Third respondent is the rider of the motor cycle and the fourth respondent is the insurer of the motor cycle. The appellants claimed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation.

3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 together filed a written statement denying the allegation of rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC driver. Further contended that the accident happened due to the overspeed of the bike. Compensation claimed is exorbitant and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

4. Heard.

5. The counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- as loss of dependency whereas the claim was for Rs.5,00,000/-. Going by the decision in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [2011 (13) SCC 236], the notional income of the appellant can be taken as Rs.6,500/- as the accident happened in 2008. The counsel further submits that since the deceased was aged below 40 years and self-employed, going by the decision reported in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (16) SCC 680], an addition of 40% of the income should be taken as future prospects. Thus, the income would be 6,500 + 2,600 (6500 *40%) = 9,100/- . Since he was having three dependents, one – third of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses. Going by Annexure Nos.A3 and A4, it is seen that the deceased was aged 38 years at the time of accident.

Accordingly, as per the decision reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another (2010 (2) KLT 802), the multiplier is taken as 15. Thus the loss of dependency can be worked out as 9,100 x 12 x 15 x 2/3=

Rs.10,92,000/- The Tribunal awarded Rs.4,00,000/-.

6. Towards compensation for loss of estate, Rs.10,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal. I am inclined to enhance the same to Rs.15,000/-.

7. The appellants/claimants being the wife and children, going by the decision reported in Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Others [(2028) 18 SCC 130], are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each under the head of compensation for loss of consortium. Thus, Rs.1,20,000/- is awarded in this appeal. The appellants were granted Rs.25,000/- towards loss of consortium by the Tribunal.

Accordingly, the following enhancements are made to the award passed by the Tribunal:

Sl.\nNo.	Head of Claim	Amt. Awarded\nby Tribunal\n(Rs.)	Amt. Enhanced\nin appeal (Rs.)
1	Loss of consortium	25,000/-	1,20,000/-
3.	Loss of estate	10,000/-	15,000/-
4.	Loss of dependency	4,00,000/-	10,92,000
	Total	4,35,000/-	12,27,000/-
	Amount enhanced – 12,27,000 - 4,35,000 =7,92,000/-

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the appellants are entitled to an amount of Rs.7,92,000/- (Rupees seven lakh ninety two thousand only) and the Insurance Company shall pay interest for the amounts awarded by the Tribunal at the rate directed in the impugned award and for the enhanced amounts at the rate of 7% from the date of petition. If any amounts have already been paid, the same shall be granted set off. The claimants shall produce the details of the Bank accou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document