Court affirmed the need to ensure just compensation by recalculating dependency and allowances per established legal standards, modifying earlier Tribunal awards.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 09th day of January, 2025

The 3^rd respondent in OP (MV).No.747 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyattinkara is the appellant herein. The petitioners in the O.P.(MV) are the cross objectors. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal)

2. The petitioners are the wife, children and parents of deceased by name Thomas, who died on 03.05.2008 in pursuance to the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 30.04.2009. The petitioners filed the O.P under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation. According to the petitioners, while the deceased was standing on the side of the public road, a goods vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-01-AH-3287, driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit him down. As a result of the accident, he sustained fatal injuries, and he succumbed to the injuries while under treatment.

3. The 1^st respondent is the owner, the 2^nd respondent is the driver and 3^rd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. The evidence in the case consists of the documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A12, Exts.B1 and B2.

The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.13,86,700/- rounded to Rs.13,87,000/-. Aggrieved by the award, the 3^rd respondent preferred MACA No.1606 of 2017 and the petitioners preferred the cross objection.

4. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following:

Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.

5. Heard Sri.P.Jacob Mathew, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the insurance company, and Sri.R.Nikhil, the learned Counsel for the cross objectors.

6. The Point: In this case the accident and valid policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. Though in the written statement the 3^rd respondent has contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased, at the time of arguments such a contention was not taken. The petitioners produced Ext.A3, copy of the final report involved in the crime registered against the driver of the offending vehicle, in respect to the above accident. In the light of the above charge sheet, negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle stands proved. Therefore, the 3^rd respondent, being the insurer, is liable to indemnify the compensation, which is liable to be awarded against the owner of the offending vehicle.

7. The contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel who is appearing for the 3^rd respondent is that the Tribunal has added 30% of the income towards future prospects, and it ought to have been 25% in the light of the dictum laid down in the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd v Pranay Sethi [ (2017) 16 SCC 680 ]. Further he would argue that the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and another Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expense which are on the higher side in the light of the decision inPranay Sethi (supra). He would also argue that the notional income fixed by the Tribunal is on the higher side.

8. On the other hand, the learned for the cross objectors would argue that the notional income fixed by the Tribunal is correct.

9. At the time of the accident on 03.04.2009 the deceased was aged 46 years. As per the claim petition, he was working as a Head load worker. The petitioner claimed the monthly income of Rs.8,000/- and the same was accepted by the Tribunal on the basis of Ext.A12 – salary certificate. The learned Senior Counsel would argue that as per the dictum laid down in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance [ (2011) 13 SCC 23