Compensation assessment must consider accurate income, dependency calculations, and avoid duplication of claims.

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the claimants in OP(MV) No.321 of 2005 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam, claiming enhancement of compensation. The first respondent herein was the third respondent before the tribunal and the additional second respondent herein was the additional fourth respondent before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimants was that on 22.11.2004, while the deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL–2/D 2963, a bus bearing Reg.No.KL-3/J 9723 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the motorcycle, 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 ₹17,00,000/-.

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. The additional fourth respondent is the mother of the deceased. PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A10 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 ₹9,14,000/- 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; and in default of payment as above, penal interest @ 9% per annum was also awarded. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimants have come up in appeal.

4. During the pendency of the appeal, the mother of the deceased, who was the additional fourth respondent before the tribunal, was impleaded as the additional second respondent herein.

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

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

6.1. Notional income - The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased, aged 29 years at the time of the accident, was serving as a Police Constable and was earning ₹8,169/- per month. However, the tribunal has notionally fixed the monthly income at only ₹4,000/- after deducting one-third towards personal expenses. I find no reason to reduce the income of the deceased, who lost his life in the accident. Hence, I am inclined to fix the income at ₹8,169/- as shown in Ext.A10 salary certificate.

6.2. Loss of dependency - Since the monthly income of the deceased is refixed at ₹8,169/-, the compensation towards loss of dependency has to be recalculated. The deceased was a permanent employee aged 29 years at the time of the accident. Hence, following the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662(SC)], 50% future prospects can be added to the income now fixed. Thus, after adding 50% of the notional income towards future prospects, the amount would be arrived at ₹12,253.5/- (4084.5 + 8169), which is rounded off to ₹12,254/-. It is seen that the tribunal wrongly adopted the multiplier as “18” instead of “17”. Since the deceased was 29 years old at the time of the accident, I adopt “17” as the multiplier for assessing compensation towards loss of dependency. It is also seen that the tribunal deducted one-third of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased, instead of one- fourth. Since