Compensation for loss of dependency must reflect actual income, considering documented evidence and legal standards for assessment.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioners in O.P.(MV). No. 1179 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakkuda, have preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the tribunal on account of the death of one Varghese Mathai, who died in a motor accident that occurred on

27.05.2017.

2. The brief fact of the case is as follows:-

On 27.05.2017, at about 9.00 a.m., while Sri. Varghese Mathai was walking through the extreme eastern side of Guruvayur - Kodungallur sector of NH-17, and when reached near Perinjanam Panchayat office, a scooter bearing registration No.KL-47-E-1303, driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit Sri.Varghese Mathai, causing him to be thrown onto the road and to sustain grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, he was rushed to the Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam; however, he succumbed to his injuries on 02.06.2017 while undergoing treatment.

3. The owner and driver of the offending scooter were arrayed as the 1^st and 2^nd respondents, respectively, whereas the insurer was arrayed as the 3^rd respondent. The 1^st and 2^nd respondents were set exparte. The 3^rd respondent contested the petition and filed a written statement mainly disputing the quantum of compensation awarded, despite admitting insurance coverage for the lorry involved in the accident.

4. During trial, the documents produced from the side of the petitioners were marked as Exts. A1 to A21. From the side of the respondent/, no documents whatsoever were produced.

5. After trial, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the scooter bearing registration No.KL-47-E-1303 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.12,06,250/-, with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation and proportionate costs. Seeking enhancement of the said compensation awarded by the tribunal, the petitioners have come up with this appeal.

6. Heard the learned counsels for both sides.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under various heads, particularly under the head of loss of dependency, is too meagre and is not sufficient to compensate the actual loss and damages suffered by the bereaved family of the deceased. According to the learned counsel, the tribunal failed to properly appreciate the materials on record, particularly the fact that the deceased was an income-tax assessee. It was urged that the tribunal assessed the income of the deceased in a casual and arbitrary manner without due consideration of the documentary evidence produced. The learned counsel further submitted that the tribunal omitted to award any amount as compensation under the head of loss of consortium in favour of the petitioner Nos. 2 to 4, notwithstanding the fact that they are the children of the deceased. On these premises, it was contended that interference with the impugned award is warranted. Per contra, the learned counsel for the insurance company would submit that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under each and every head is just, fair, reasonable, and adequate, and hence no interference is warranted.

8. From the rival contentions raised, it is gatherable that the main dispute that revolves around this appeal is with respect to the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. 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.20,000/-. In the petition, it was averred that the deceased was a Private Surveyor at the time of the accident and was earning a monthly income of Rs.50,000/-. In addition to producing the certificate evidencing the educationa