Court reinforced the necessity of considering future income prospects in calculating loss of dependency for compensation in motor accident claims.

J U D G M E N T

M.A.C.A.Nos. 927 of 2020 and 2468 of 2022 have been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) by the claim petitioners and the second respondent/insurer respectively in O.P.(MV) No.1318/2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 08/11/2019. In this appeal, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition.

2. The claim petitioners are the wife, children and mother of deceased Naufal. According to the claim petitioners, on 12/10/2015 at 08:00 a.m. while the deceased was riding motorcycle bearing registration no.KL-2X-8573 through the Oyur-Ayur public road, west of Karalikonam junction, motorcycle bearing registration no.KL-24-J-5250 ridden by the third respondent in a negligent manner collided with his vehicle as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries, to which he succumbed.

3. The first respondent-owner and the third respondent-rider filed written statement denying negligence on the part of the latter. Averments in the petition regarding age, occupation and income of the deceased were also disputed.

4. The second respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the policy but denying negligence on the part of the third respondent. Amount claimed under various heads were also disputed.

5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A11 were marked on the side of the claim petitioners. No documentary evidence was adduced by the respondents.

6. The Tribunal on consideration of the documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the third respondent-rider of the offending motorcycle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹47,39,920/- together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the second respondent/insurer and the claim petitioners have come up in appeals.

7. The only point that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court.

8. Heard both sides

9. The award of compensation by the Tribunal under the following heads are challenged-

M.A.C.A No. 927 of 2020 It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioners that the deceased was aged 37 years at the time of the incident, which took place on 12/10/2015. Therefore, it was 50% that was required to be added to the established income while calculating loss of future prospects. This is not disputed by the learned counsel for the second respondent/insurer. Hence the deduction towards personal expenses from the income of the deceased would be 50%.

M.A.C.A No. 2468 of 2020

10. The learned counsel for the second respondent/insurer advanced arguments relating to the compensation granted under various heads by the Tribunal. However, on going through the impugned Award, I find that the amounts awarded are just and reasonable and hence, no interference into the same is required. Finding of the Tribunal giving the second respondent the right to recover from the first respondent/owner shall stand confirmed.

11. The impugned Award is modified to the following extent: