The judgment clarifies the methodology for calculating compensation in motor accident claims, emphasizing accurate assessment of dependency and prohibition against duplicative compensation.

JUDGMENT

(Dated this the 16^th day of October, 2025)

This appeal is filed by the appellant/ 2^nd respondent insurer in O.P.(MV) No.720 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. The respondents herein are the claimants before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimants is that on 16.02.2013 at about 4.30 am, the deceased was travelling in a pickup van bearing Registration No. KL-12-D-6598, which was driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner. The vehicle collided with a tipper lorry bearing registration No. KL-01-BC-8387, which was parked on the side of the road. As a result, the deceased sustained serious injuries and subsequently succumbed to those injuries. The legal heirs approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹ 18,00,000/- .

3. The first respondent, the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle, remained ex parte before the tribunal. The second respondent insurer filed a written statement admitting the insurance policy and disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. Exts.A1 to A6 were marked. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a total compensation of ₹30,18,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest @9% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the 2^nd respondent, being the insurer. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded, the 2^nd respondent insurer has come up with this appeal.

4. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/insurer and the learned Counsel for the claimants.

5. The insurer has filed this appeal challenging the quantum of compensation under the following heads:-

Notional Income:- The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurance company submits that the tribunal had taken an amount of ₹14,000/- as the monthly income of the deceased, relying on Ext.A1 FIS statement and also the fact that he was doing business at Mananthody, Wayanad. I do not find any reason to interfere with the income fixed by the tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant insurer submits that the tribunal has added 30% future prospects whereas, the deceased was aged 48 years at the time of the accident, and the future prospects to be added ought to have been 25%. I find force in the argument. Accordingly, following the apex court judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi & Ors [2017 (4) KLT

662 SC], by adding 25% future prospects to the income fixed, the income would be ₹17,500/- (₹14,000 x 25% of ₹14,000)

for calculating dependency.

Loss of Dependency :- The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurance company further submits that deduction made towards personal and living expenses is 1/6^th instead of 1/4^th., the dependants being five in number. The legal heirs being only five in number, the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses ought to have been 1/4^th and not 1/6^th. The deceased was aged 48 years at the time of the accident, and hence the appropriate multiplier to be adopted is ‘13’. Since the monthly income after adding 25% future prospects is fixed at ₹17,500/-, following the judgments of the apex court in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], the compensation payable under the head is recalculated thus: ₹20,47,500/- (17,500 x 12 x 13x 3/4) as the total compensation payable towards loss of dependency. The tribunal has awarded an amount of ₹23,66,000/- under the head loss of dependency. Thus, an amount of ₹3,18,500/- is hereby deducted under th