The court reserves power to modify compensation amounts based on legal reasoning, adjusting income calculations and deductions according to precedent.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the 3^rd respondent insurer in O.P.

(MV) No.899 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. The respondent herein is the claimant before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimant is that on 19.09.2013 at about 16.30 hours, while the deceased was riding his scooter, a KSRTC bus bearing Reg. No. KL 15-7323 driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, knocked down the deceased. As a result of which, the deceased sustained severe injuries, and later succumbed to those injuries. The legal heir of the deceased approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹11,14,000/-.

3. The respondents 1 to 3 were the registered owner, driver and the insurer of the offending vehicle, respectively. Before the tribunal, the 2^nd respondent remained ex parte The first respondent filed a written statement admitting the incident and disputing the quantum of compensation claimed.

The 3^rd respondent - insurer also filed a written statement admitting the policy and also disputing the quantum of compensation awarded. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A12 and Ext.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 total compensation of ₹13,86,800/- as compensation under different heads with interest @9% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the 3^rd respondent, being the insurer. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded, the 3^rd respondent insurer has come up with this appeal.

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

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

Notional Income:- The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/ claimant submitted that the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹9,000/- as the income of the deceased, whereas, he was a self employed person running a stationery shop, a bakery and a cool bar and had claimed an amount of ₹15,000/-. However, no other document was produced to prove the income. But considering the fact that he was a self employed person and was running a stationery shop he cannot be equated to that of a coolie. The learned counsel appearing for the insurer submitted that the claimant has not filed any appeal challenging the award passed. It is true that he has not filed any appeal against the award. However, in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, I find it appropriate to refix the income as ₹9,500/-. The learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company submitted that the tribunal while awarding compensation under the head loss of dependency added 30% future prospects to the income of ₹9,000/-, instead of 10% future prospects. Since the deceased was aged 50 years, the future prospects to be added was 10% and not 30%. Following the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi & Ors [2017 (4) KLT 662 SC], by adding 10%

future prospects to the income fixed, the income would be ₹10,450/- (₹9,500 x 10% of ₹9,500) for calculating dependency.

Loss of Dependency :- The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that the deduction made towards personal and living expenses was 1/3^rd, instead of one half, since the claimant was the wife alone and there were no other legal heirs claiming compensation under the head loss of dependency. However, it is an admitted fact that the deceased was a married person and he would not spend amounts as that of a bachelor. Hence, I find that the deduction of 1/3^rd by the tribunal does not nee