The court reinforces that compensation must reflect realistic income assessments and adhere to established judicial precedents for motor vehicle accident claims.

J U D G M E N T

This appeal is filed by claimants in O.P.(MV)

No.1077/2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. The respondents herein were the respondents 1 and 3 before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimants, on 01.07.2010 at about 7.30 p.m. while the deceased Padmesh was riding a motor cycle bearing No.TN-07-BB-5028 through Perumbakkam- Cholinganallur road, an educational institution bus bearing No.TN-21-AA-7701 driven by second respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit the motor cycle causing serious injuries. While undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to the injuries on 08.07.2010. The claimants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹66,06,000/-

limited to ₹60,00,000/-.

3. Respondents 1 and 2, who are the owner and driver of the offending vehicle respectively, remained ex parte before the tribunal. The 3^rd respondent insurer filed a written statement admitting the insurance policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed and denying negligence. PW’s 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A21 and Ext.B1 were marked before the tribunal. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a total compensation of ₹36,88,330/- with interest @ 8% per annum against the respondent insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimants have come up in appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurance company.

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

Notional income :- The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that though an amount of ₹32,500/- was claimed as income, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹20,304/- as the monthly income. The learned counsel relied on Exts.A10 to A12 to prove that the deceased was receiving a higher income at the time of the accident. The learned counsel also submitted that the tribunal relied only on Ext.A13, the annual income tax return for the year 2008-2009 for the previous year, to fix the monthly income at ₹20,340/-. The learned counsel further submitted that, as per Ext.A10, the letter issued by the company, there was a revision of salary for the year 2009-2010. Since the accident occurred on 01.07.2010, the deceased could not file annual returns for the assessment year 2009-2010. On a perusal of Ext.A10, it is seen that there was an annual increment of ₹30,000/- and the annual CTC was revised to ₹3,30,000/-. Ext.A11 consists of the payslips for the months of April and May 2010, wherein the monthly salary is shown as ₹24,860/-. Thus, the annual income comes to ₹2,98,320/-. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the tax free slab for the assessment year 2009-2010 was upto ₹1,60,000/-. Hence, after deducting ₹1,60,000/- from the above annual income, the total tax payable is ₹1,38,320/-, and the professional tax of ₹2,500/- also has to be deducted. Therefore, after deducting a total amount of ₹16,332/- from ₹2,98,320/-, the net annual income comes to ₹2,81,988/-. Thus, the notional monthly income is fixed at ₹23,499/-

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that the Tribunal had added 50% towards future prospects to the income fixed, even though the deceased was an employee of a private company. Admittedly, there is no dispute regarding the fact that the deceased was an engineer by profession. The deceased was working in a company at Hyderabad, which was a Public Listed company, and also as evidenced by Ext.A12 certificat