The Court recalibrated compensation based on established precedents, affirming enhanced awards under various heads in motor accident claims.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimants in O.P (MV) No.681 of

2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam. The respondents herein are the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimants, on 31.01.2010, at about 08.30 a.m., while the deceased was pillion riding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-36/A-4173 along Kottayam – Vaikom public road, a bus bearing registration No. KL-41/A-9312 driven by the third respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motorcycle and as a result, the deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the way to hospital. The claimants who are the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹6,21,000/-, which is limited to ₹5,00,000/-.

3. Though notice was served on the respondents, the first and third respondents, the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle respectively, remained absent and were set ex parte before the tribunal. The second respondent – the insurer filed a written statement admitting the insurance policy, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A14 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, found that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the third respondent and awarded a sum of ₹3,61,000/-, as compensation under different heads with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs against the respondent being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimants have come up in appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants claim enhancement mainly under the following heads:-

I. Notional Income The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased was a B-Sc student at the time of accident and the tribunal had fixed the income notionally only at 4,000/-. The learned counsel 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 of a coolie for an accident in 2010 is fixed as ₹7,500/- and sought for enhancement of income fixed. However, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (Supra) and in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, I find it appropriate to re-fix the notional monthly income at ₹7,500/-.

II. Loss of dependency Since the deceased was aged 19 years at the time of accident, following the judgment in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)], 40% of the future prospects is to be added towards the monthly income now fixed and the income would be ₹10,500/- (7,500 x 40% + 7,500) for awarding compensation under the head, loss of dependency. Since the deceased was a bachelor at the time of accident, the deduction to be taken towards his personal and living expenses is 1/2 and the multiplier to be adopted is “18”. Hence, following the apex court judgments in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], the total compensation payable under the afore head is recalculated thus: ₹11,34,000/- (10,500 x 12 x 18 x 1/2). The tribunal had granted an amount of ₹3,12,000/- under the said head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹8,22,000/- under the afore head.

III. Funeral expenses & Loss of estate Towards the head funeral expenses and loss of estate, the tribunal had awarded only an amount of ₹5,000/- each, whereas the appellants are entitled for an amount of ₹15,000/- each. Following th