IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA FRIDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1944 MACA NO. 1306 OF 2012 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 750/2008 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

1 BEENA MURALEEDHARAN W/O.LATE MURALEEDHARAN, ELOOR HOUSE, PALAMURI DESOM, MELOOR, THRISSUR.

2 VISHNUPRASAD S/O.LATE MURALEEDHARAN, DO---- DO-----

3 MINOR AISWARYA D/O.LATE MURALEEDHARAN, DO----- DO---- DO----, REPRESENTED BY IST APPELLANT.

*4 C.R.JANAKI (DIED)

W/O.A.CHANDRASEKARAN NAIR, ELOOR HOUSE, PALAMURI, MELOOR.

[4TH APPELLANT IS RECORDED AS DIED AS PER ORDER DATED 17.06.2022 IN R.P.NO.472/2022 FILED AGAISNT JUDGMENT DATED 08.04.2022 IN MACA

1306/2012]

BY ADV SRI.T.N.MANOJ RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

1 ANBU SELVAM S/O.MR.RAJ, VELLIAMMAL LAYOUT, NETHAJI ROAD POLLACHI-642 001.

2 RAJESH S/O.SHANMUGHAN, KOZHIKUTHI HOUSE, VADAVANNOOR DESOM, CHITTOOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.686 321.

3 THE MANAGER NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD, RAJA MILL ROAD, POLLACHI.642 001.

BY ADVS.

SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW P.JAYASANKAR OTHER PRESENT:

P.JACOB MATHEW-R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

08.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed against the Award passed in O.P.(MV) No.750/2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda (in short, the Tribunal). The claim petition has been filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, the Act) claiming compensation on account of the death of Muraleedharan, husband of the 1^st appellant, father of appellants 2 & 3 and son of the 4^th appellant.

2. It is alleged that the accident occurred on

17.01.2008 at about 11.15 p.m., in Ernakulam-Thrissur National Highway at Koratty Junction due to hit by a lorry bearing Reg.No.TN 33/D 7475 driven by the 2^nd respondent. While undergoing treatment, he succumbed to the injuries. It is alleged that the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the 2^nd respondent. First respondent is the owner of the vehicle. The appellants claimed a total compensation of Rs.14,00,000/-.

3. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex-parte. 3^rd respondent/insurer filed written statement, admitting the policy coverage with respect to the offending vehicle. The rashness and negligence attributed against the 2^nd respondent is denied. The age, occupation and monthly income of the deceased are disputed. It is further contended that the appellants are not the dependents or legal heirs of the deceased.

4. PW1 examined and Exts.A1 to A5 were marked from the side of the appellants. There was no evidence from the side of respondent.

5. Tribunal on evaluating the evidence and facts and circumstances found that the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the 2^nd respondent. 1^st respondent/owner is held liable for the act of the 2^nd respondent. The 3^rd respondent/insurer was held liable to indemnify the 1^st respondent. A total compensation of Rs.9,15,864/- was awarded.

6. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants came up before this Court in appeal under various grounds stated in the Memorandum of appeal.

7. Notice as against the respondents 1 and 2 is dispensed with at the risk of the appellants. Adv.Sri.P.Jacob Mathew, entered appearance on behalf of the 3^rd respondent/insurer.

8. Heard the learned Counsel for the claimants as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent/insurer. Lower court records were called for and perused.

9. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the Tribunal deducted 1/3^rd of the annual income towards personal and living expenses, which is against the settled principles of law. He would also contend that nothing was added towards future prospects. 30% ought to have been added towards future prospects. The learned counsel also would contend that compensation awarded u