The court affirmed the tribunal's negligence finding while modifying the compensation amount based on just evaluation of income losses and related expenses, ultimately enhancing total compensation.

JUDGMENT

These appeals have been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) by the claim petitioners and respondents 3 & 4 respectively in O.P.(MV) No.1670/2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the Award dated 23/07/2019. The respondents in MACA No.638/2020 are respondents 1 to 4 respectively in the petition and the respondents in MACA No.1005/2020 are claim petitioners 1 to 3 respectively in the petition. In these appeals, the parties and documents will be referred to as described in the original petition.

2. According to the claim petitioners, on 27/10/2015 at about 07:30 a.m. while the deceased was riding motorcycle bearing registration no.KL.51.B.8959 through Kottarakkara-Mavelikkara MC road and when he reached near the place by name Puthusseribhagam, car bearing registration no.KL.02.AU.5609 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries to which he succumbed. A sum of ₹60,00,000/- was claimed as compensation under various heads.

3. The first respondent/driver and the second respondent/owner of the offending vehicle filed written statement contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. The age, occupation, employment and income of the deceased were disputed. It was also contended that the compensation claimed was quite excessive.

4. The third respondent/insurer and the fourth respondent filed written statement admitting the existence of a valid policy in respect of the offending vehicle. The age, occupation, employment and income of the deceased were disputed. It was also contended that the compensation claimed was quite excessive.

5. Before the Tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A40 were marked on the side of the claim petitioners. No evidence was adduced by the respondents.

6. The Tribunal on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the first respondent/driver of the offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹27,04,830/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the claim petitioners and respondents 3 and 4 have come up in appeal.

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 is challenged - Notional income It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioners that the notional income fixed by the Tribunal as ₹20,000/- is quite low and the same needs to be enhanced. It is submitted that in addition to an amount of ₹30,000/- that was being earned by the deceased, he was also getting gifts and hence the said aspect also ought to have been considered by the Tribunal and the notional income fixed accordingly. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that the amount that has been fixed by the Tribunal is reasonable and that it does not call for any enhancement.

9.1. Though the claim is that the deceased was earning ₹30,000/-, there are no materials to support the same. In such circumstances, the notional income of ₹20,000/- fixed by the Tribunal in the year 2015 appears to be just and reasonable. Hence, no interference into the same is called for.

Deduction to be made towards personal expenses

10. Admittedly, the claim petitioners are the wife and two major children of the deceased. T