Ensuring adequate compensation assessment for loss of income and dependency following motor accident fatalities.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners in OP(MV) No.57/2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad have preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the tribunal on account of the death of Unnikrishnan in a motor accident that occurred on 06.07.2012.

2. The case of the petitioners is that on 06.07.2012 at about 8 p.m., while Sri.Unnikrishnan was travelling in an autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL/57/E/3278 as a passenger and reached at P.C.Mukku in Thamarassery-Balussery State Highway, a bus bearing Reg.No.KL/56/B/1566 driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit the auto rickshaw. Due to the impact of the hit, Unnikrishnan sustained fatal injuries and he died at the spot.

3. The registered owner and driver of the offending bus bearing Reg.No.KL-56/B-1566 and owner-cum-driver of auto rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-57/E-3278 were arrayed as the 1^st 2^nd and 4^th respondents respectively, whereas, the insurer of the bus was arrayed as the 3^rd respondent.

4. The 3^rd respondent contested the petition by written statement mainly disputing the quantum of compensation claimed, despite admitting insurance coverage for the bus involved in the accident.

5. During trial, the documents produced from the side of the petitioners were marked as Ext.A1 to A20. From the side of the respondents, Exts.B1 to B5 were marked.

6. After trial, the tribunal came to a conclusion that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the 2^nd respondent, and being the insurer, the 3^rd respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The compensation was quantified at Rs.11,85,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till date of realisation and proportionate costs. Dissatisfied by the said compensation awarded, the petitioner has come up with this appeal.

7. I heard Sri.Baby Mathew, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.P.Jacob Mathew, learned standing counsel for the respondent insurance company.

8. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under various heads is too meagre and will not commensurate with the actual loss and damages incurred by the petitioners due to the accident. According to the counsel, the tribunal grossly erred in assessing the income of the deceased reasonably and consequently awarded only a meagre amount as compensation under the head of permanent disability. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent insurance company submitted that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under each and every head is just, fair, reasonable and adequate and hence warrants no interference.

9. From the rival contentions raised, it is discernible that the main dispute that revolves around this appeal is with respect to the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal under various heads, particularly, under the head of loss of dependency. As evident from the impugned award for the purpose of determining the compensation under the head of loss of dependency, the tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/-. In the petition, it is averred that the deceased was a manual labourer earning a monthly income of Rs.12,500/- at the time of the accident. As evident from the records, apart from raising such a contention in the petition, no documentary evidence, whatsoever, has been produced from the side of the petitioners to substantiate their contentions regarding the occupation and income of the deceased. Nevertheless, admittedly, the accident occurred in t