The court reaffirmed that compensation should reflect fair amounts based on notional income and future prospects, ensuring provisions for families dependently affected by a deceased's loss.

JUDGMENT The above appeal is filed by the appellant/4th respondent insurer challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claimants Tribunal, Pala in O.P.(MV) No.584 of 2013. The Cross Objection is filed by the legal heirs of the deceased seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the tribunal. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal).

2. According to the claimants/cross-objectors, while the deceased was travelling as a passenger in a Maruti Omni van bearing registration No. KL-05-Q-8193, a tipper lorry bearing registration No. KL-37/A-309, driven by the 3rd respondent, came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and collided with the Maruti van. As a result, the deceased sustained serious injuries and subsequently succumbed to the same. The appellant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹ ₹

13,92,000/- limited to 12,00,000/-.

3. The appellant - insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy, but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced on either side.

Exts.A1 to A8 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of Rs.8,03,100/- as compensation under different heads with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the respondent being the insurer. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the insurer as well as the claimants have come up with this appeal.

4. I have heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company and the learned counsel appearing for the cross objector.

Notional income :- The learned counsel for the cross-

objectors submitted that the deceased was aged 50 and was a ₹

homemaker. Though a monthly income of 7,000/- was claimed, ₹

the Tribunal fixed the income notionally at 6,000/. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236] , the monthly ₹

income ought to have been fixed atleast at 9,000/- since the accident occured in 2013. However, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), in order to award a just compensation, I ₹

find it is appropriate to refix the monthly income as 9,000/-.

Compensation for loss of dependency :- The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that the deceased was a homemaker. However, the Tribunal erroneously added 15% towards future prospects to the income fixed, instead of the permissible 10%. Since the deceased was a homemaker, I find that 10% has to be added towards the income fixed by the tribunal.

₹

The monthly income fixed is at 9,000/- by adding 10% towards ₹

future prospects, the amount would come to 9,900/- (9,000+9,000x10/100) for awarding compensation under the head loss of dependency. Therefore, the compensation payable under the ₹

said head is recalculated thus: 8,71,200/- (9,900x12x11x2/3). As ₹

the tribunal has already awarded an amount of 6,83,100/- towards the said head, there will be an additional amount of ₹

1,88,100/- under the head loss of dependency.

Compensation for funeral expenses :- The learned standing counsel submitted that going by the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)], the cross-objectors are entitled only for a total compensation ₹

15,000/- under the afore head. The tribunal has awarded an ₹

amount of 25,000/-. Therefore, there will be a deduction of ₹

10,000/- under the afore head.

Compensation for loss of estate :- The learned counsel for the cross-objectors submitted that going by the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), th