Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 52419
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
SOPHY THOMAS, J
K.G.UDAYA KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
JAMES T.J – Respondent
MACA/2345/2014
SRI.V.P.PRASAD, T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH, SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW, T.K.SASINDRAN, A.R.GEORGE
The court affirmed that future income potential and appropriate multipliers must be accurately assessed in determining compensation for wrongful death.
Headnote:
Compensation - Motor Vehicle Accident - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 166, 168 - The court re-evaluated compensation regarding loss of dependency, future prospects, and additional expenses, correcting the tribunal's calculations to enhance the claimants’ compensation.
Fact of the Case:
The claimants, parents of a deceased engineering student, sought compensation for the loss incurred from a fatal motorcycle accident caused by the negligent driving of a bus.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the initial compensation inadequate, adjusted the deceased's notional income and multiplier for calculating the loss of dependency, and made corrections regarding various compensation heads, ultimately enhancing the compensation payable to the claimants.
Issues: The main issues were the adequacy of the compensation awarded by the tribunal, the proper notional income to be considered for the deceased student, and the application of the correct multiplier for loss of dependency.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the notional income for a promising student must reflect potential future earnings, and the multiplier should be adjusted based on age to accurately calculate loss of dependency.
Final Decision: The appeal is allowed, enhancing the compensation by Rs.3,32,400/-.
J U D G M E N T
This appeal has been preferred by the claimants in OP(MV) No.2077 of 2012 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam alleging inadequacy of compensation granted in the impugned award dated
31.07.2014.
2. The appellants are the parents of deceased Vaishnav, who was a 19 year old Engineering student at Rajagiri College of Engineering, Kakkanadu. On 05.05.2012, at 2.30 p.m., while he was pillion riding a motorcycle through Palarivattom - Kaloor public road, KL-07/BN-2300 stage carriage driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit on the handlebar of the motorcycle, which was ridden by the 4th respondent. Due to that impact, Sri.Vaishnav was thrown down on the road and the wheel of the bus ran over him, causing his instantaneous death.
3. The 1st respondent was the driver, the 2nd respondent was the owner and the 3rd respondent was the Insurer of the offending bus.
4. The appellants approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.45,00,000/-. PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A13 were marked from the side of the appellants/claimants to substantiate their claim. Learned Tribunal on analysing the facts and evidence, awarded compensation of Rs.16,07,500/- in total under various heads.
5. The appellants are assailing the impugned award on various grounds. The Tribunal fixed only a meager annual income of Rs.90,000/- to the deceased though he was a B.Tech student, who could have obtained a part time monthly salary of Rs.15,000/-. The Tribunal did not consider his future prospects. The tragic accident shattered the hopes and aspirations of the appellants and the Tribunal ought to have granted adequate compensation to make good the loss suffered by them. The Tribunal ought to have found that the rider of the motorcycle, in which the deceased was pillion riding, was also negligent and the accident occurred due to the composite negligence of respondent Nos.1 and 4 and so, respondents 3 and 5 were liable to pay the compensation.
6. Let us have a reappraisal of the facts and evidence to find out whether any illegality or impropriety is there warranting interference of the impugned award.
7. There is no dispute with respect to the fact that Sri.Vaishnav, who was a 19 year old Engineering student, died in the road traffic accident occurred on 05.05.2012, at 2.30 p.m., while he was pillion riding a motorcycle ridden by the 4th respondent. Though the appellants have got a contention that the accident occured due to the composite negligence of respondent Nos. 1 and 4, Ext.A7 final report clearly shows that the accident occured due to the rash and negligent driving of KL-07/BN-2300 bus by the 1st respondent. Before the Tribunal, the appellants had no case that there was negligence from the part of the 4th respondent, and according to them, the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the 1st respondent. So, now they cannot turn round and say that the accident occured due to the composite negligence of the 4th respondent also, without any materials to support that contention.
8. The policy of the offending vehicle is not in dispute.
9. The Tribunal fixed annual income of the victim @
Rs.90,000/-, fixing his notional income at Rs.10,000/- and giving 50% addition for future prospects and on deducting half of the income towards his personal expenses. Admittedly, the victim was an Engineering student and he was not working or earning any income at that time. But it has come out in evidence that he was a brilliant student, good at sports and games, and no doubt, he had a bright future ahead.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants relied on a decisionSudhakaran K. and others v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. [ILR 2016 (2) Kerala 38] in which a Division Bench of this Court was pleaded to fix notional income of an Engineering student in an accident that occurred in the year 2006 at Rs.12,000/- per month. According to them, deceased Vaishnav also is entitled to have his notional income fixed at the rate
