Determination of compensation in fatal accident claims based on income and dependencies established under relevant case law.

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the claimants in OP(MV) No.843 of 2009 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, claiming compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimant is that on 11.05.2008, while the deceased was driving a car bearing Reg.No.KL-2/Z 5875 through Potta - Irinjalakuda road, a tata sumo car bearing Reg.No.KL-09/E-6107 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the car driven by the deceased, whereby he sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The claimants, being the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹17,50,000/-.

3. Respondents 1 and 2, who are the owner and driver of the offending vehicle respectively, remained ex parte before the tribunal. The third respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. PW1 to PW4 were examined and Exts.A1 to A7 & B1 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 sum of ₹7,35,800/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the third respondent being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimants have come up in appeal.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants claims enhancement under the following heads:

5.1. Notional income - The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was working as a Checker in the Toddy Workers’ Welfare Fund under the employment of toddy shop contractors and was earning ₹8,050/- per month. It is further submitted that the deceased was also having earnings as a part time kuri canvassing agent of Pongam Kuries. However, the tribunal has fixed the monthly income notionally only at ₹3,500/-, which is on the lower side. The learned counsel relied on Ext.A4 income certificate as well as Ext.A5 certificate issued by the Pongam Kuries to substantiate the above contentions. In order to prove Ext.A4 income certificate, PW3 was examined, who deposed that Ext.A4 was issued by him while he was the Manager of the toddy shop contractors. Though PW3 and PW4 were examined to prove that the deceased was employed in Toddy Shop No.50 of Cherpu range and was getting an income of ₹8,050/- per month and they have deposed before the tribunal that the deceased was earning ₹8,050/- per month, no supporting documents were produced to prove the same. As per the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236] , for an accident that occurred in 2008, the monthly income of a coolie is fixed at ₹6,500/-. However, considering the evidence adduced by the appellants and the fact that he was also working as a canvassing agent for Pongam Kurie, I find it appropriate to refix the monthly income of the deceased at ₹9,000/-.

5.2. Loss of dependency - Since the monthly income of the deceased is refixed at ₹9,000/-, compensation towards loss of dependency has to be recalculated. The deceased was 42 years old at the time of the accident, hence, 25% future prospects can be added to the income now fixed. Thus, after adding 25% of the notional income towards future prospects, the amount would be arrived at ₹11,250/- (9000 + 2250). Accordingly, following the judgments in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi