The court clarified compensation principles under motor accident claims, emphasizing adjustments based on income, age, and judicial precedents for quantifying damages.

JUDGMENT

[MACA Nos.2275/2016, 3578/2016]

These appeals are filed by the third respondent – insurance company as well as by the claimants involved in the accident. Since these two appeals arise from the same award dated 18.05.2016 in O.P.(MV) No.4/2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, the appeals are heard together and are disposed of by this judgment. M.A.C.A.No.2275 of 2016 and M.A.C.A.No.3578 of 2016 are filed by the 3rd respondent insurance company as well as by the claimants respectively, challenging the compensation awarded by the tribunal. The parties are hereinafter referred to as arrayed in the O.P.(MV).

2. The brief facts of the case is as follows: On 12.09.2011, at about 04.15 a.m., while the deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-41-A-9301 through Chalakudy – Potta NH-47, a lorry bearing registration No.KA-05-D-9284 driven by the first respondent/driver in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motorcycle, as a result, the deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment. The claimants who are the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹18,85,000/-, which is limited to ₹17,00,000/-.

3. Though notice was issued to the respondents, the first and second respondents, the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle respectively, remained absent and were set ex parte before the tribunal. The third respondent – insurer filed a written statement, admitting the insurance policy, denying the liability and disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A8 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 first respondent/driver and the appellant/claimant was awarded ₹10,73,100/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization against the respondent - insurer. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded as well as dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the insurance company and the claimants have come up with the above appeals respectively.

4. Heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company and the learned counsel for the claimants.

5. The learned standing counsel appearing for insurance company and the learned counsel appearing for the claimants mainly challenged the quantum of compensation under the following heads:

I. Notional Income The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that though an amount of ₹15,000/- was claimed as the monthly income of the deceased, who was working as a Manager in a hotel, relying on Ext.A6 salary certificate, the tribunal had taken only ₹6,000/- as the monthly income. The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company, on the other hand, submitted that the claimants had claimed the income of the deceased as ₹10,000/–

before the tribunal. On a perusal of the copy of the claim petition handed over to me, it is seen that the claimants had subsequently amended the claim and enhanced the income to ₹15,000/–. Thus the tribunal had rightly noted that the income claimed as ₹15,000/-. 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 coolie for an accident in 2011 is taken as ₹8,000/-, and sought for enhancement of income on the ground that the deceased was working as a Manager in a hotel. Considering the afore facts, and in order to award a just