The court clarified contributory negligence and compensation determination principles in negligence claims, emphasizing reliance on charge sheets as prima facie evidence.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimants in O.P (MV) No.904 of

2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal and challenging the finding of 10% contributory negligence against the deceased. The respondents herein are the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimants, on 26.07.2013 at about 02.00 pm, while the deceased was riding the motorcycle bearing registration no. KL-6/A 7940, a maruti car bearing registration No.KL-40/H-7912 driven by the 5^th respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motorcycle and thereby the rider of the motorcycle fell into the road and at that time, a tipper lorry bearing registration No.KL-38-C-2527 driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner came and run over through the deceased. As a result of the accident, the deceased had sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the same day. The claimant, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹15,00,000/-.

3. The first, second and third respondents were the owner, driver and insurer of the tipper lorry. The fourth, fifth and sixth respondents are the owner, driver and insurer of the car. Respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5 remained ex parte before the tribunal. The 3^rd respondent insurer of the tipper lorry filed a written statement admitting the policy but disputing the quantum as well as negligence on the part of the deceased and 5^th respondent. The 6^th respondent insurer of the car filed a written statement admitting the policy but disputing the quantum of compensation as well as contended negligence on the part of the deceased. Before the tribunal Exts.A1 to A11 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹7,57,350/- (90% of ₹8,41,500/-) as compensation under different heads with interest @9% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs from the respondents 3 and 6 at the ratio of 45:45. Dissatisfied with the award passed by the tribunal, the claimants have come up in appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned standing counsels appearing for the respective insurance company.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant is mainly challenging the award under the following heads:-

Notional income :- The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though an amount of ₹20,000/- was claimed, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹6,000/- as the monthly income of the injured who was running a workshop. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that, as per the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236] , the income of a coolie for an accident in the year 2013 is fixed at ₹9,000/- per month and sought for enhancement of fixation of monthly income. 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 :- Since the deceased was aged 53 years at the time of the accident, going by the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)], the claimants are entitled to add 10% of the income fixed towards future prospects. Since the notional income is fixed at ₹9,000/-, by adding 10% towards future prospects, the income is recalculated as ₹9,900/- for the purpose of awarding compensation under the head loss of depe