Compensation assessment in motor accident claims must consider age, income, and negligence under relevant statutes.

JUDGMENT

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

(MV) No.378 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Taliparamba, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. The respondents herein are the claimants before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimants is that on 16.09.2014, at about 08.50 a.m., while the deceased was travelling on a motorcycle from Edat to Perumba, a bus bearing Reg No.KL- 13-K-1276 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the deceased. As a result, he sustained severe injuries and later succumbed to the injuries. The legal heirs of the deceased approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹25,56,000/- limited to ₹25,00,000/-.

3. The respondents 1 and 2 were the driver and the registered owner of the offending vehicle respectively who remained ex parte before the tribunal. The third respondent- insurer filed a written statement admitting the insurance and disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A3 were marked. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a total compensation of ₹11,20,000/- 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 respondents/claimants.

5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that the Tribunal had taken the age of the deceased as 30 years, whereas the age stated in the claim petition filed by the parents was 33 years and considering the age of the deceased as 33 years, the appropriate multiplier ought to have been 16 and not 17. It was further contended that, instead of adding 40% towards future prospects, the tribunal had added 50% to the income so fixed. However, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants/ respondents, submitted that the income taken by the tribunal was on the lower side, the tribunal ought to have taken the income as ₹9,500/- for an accident in the year 2014, placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236] . On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹5,000/- as the notional income. If the income was taken as ₹9,500/-, the compensation amount ought to have been more. On a perusal of the award, the compensation awarded by the tribunal appears to be just and reasonable. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-