The principle of 'just compensation' under the Motor Vehicles Act necessitates that deductions for personal expenses and multipliers must align with established legal standards and previous case rulings.

JUDGMENT

The appellant – insurance company was the 2nd respondent in OP(MV)No.194 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri. The respondents in the appeal were the petitioners in the claim petition. The parties, for the sake of convenience and wherever the context requires, are referred to as per their status in the claim petition.

2. The petitioners had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act , claiming compensation on account of the death of Sri.Sathyadasan @ Sathyadas (deceased), the husband of the 1st petitioner and the father of the petitioners 2 and 3. It was the case of the petitioners that : on 26.02.2012 while the deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL 53 B 3603 through the Perinthalmanna-Anamangad public road, a Maruti Alto Car bearing registration No.KL 52 9893 (offending vehicle) driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle of the deceased. The deceased succumbed to the injuries on the same day. The offending vehicle was owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent. The deceased was a school teacher in the AMUP School, Vengad and he was drawing a salary of Rs.31,880/- per month. The petitioners are the dependants of the deceased. Hence, the respondents 1 and 2 are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners which they quantified at Rs.54,00,000/-

3. The 1st respondent filed a written statement contending that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence on the part of the deceased. The offending vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent. The amount of compensation claimed was excessive. Hence, the claim petition as against the 1st respondent be dismissed.

4. The 2nd respondent filed a written statement also contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the deceased. The amount of compensation claimed was excessive and was without any basis.

5. Along with the claim petition the petitioners had also filed OP(MV)No.192/2013 seeking compensation from the respondents for the damage caused to the motorcycle. The Tribunal, by its order in IA No.4105/2015, consolidated and jointly tried both the claim petitions.

6. The petitioners marked Exts.A1 to A19 series in evidence. The respondents marked Ext.D1 to D3 in evidence.

7. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, by the impugned award allowed the claim petition by directing the 2nd respondent to pay an amount of Rs.78,52,447/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit and proportionate costs.

8. Aggrieved by the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, the insurance company - the 2nd respondent - is in appeal.

9. Heard Sri. Mathews Jacob, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri. R.Sreehari, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.

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

11. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal has without any basis fixed the salary of the deceased at Rs.51,600/-. Admittedly, by Ext.A16 salary certificate, the deceased was only drawing a monthly salary of Rs.31,800/-. The Tribunal on assuming that the 10th pay revision would come into effect from 1.7.2014 fixed the salary of the deceased at Rs.51,600/-, which is erroneous. Similarly, it was argued that the Tribunal had only deducted 1/4th of the compensation under the head 'loss of dependency' towards the personal living expenses of the deceased, which had to be 1/3rd as per the law laid down in Sarala Varma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and others [ (2010) 2 KLT 802 ]. It was also argued that the Tribunal ought to have deducted 20% of the salary of the deceased, towards income tax as he had taxable income. Moreover, as the deceased was a Government servant and was 49 years at the