Proper calculation of compensation in motor accident claims requires adherence to established legal precedents concerning income, dependency, and conventional heads.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimants in O.P (MV) No.520 of

2013 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- III, Ernakulam dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimants, on 08.01.2012 at about 06.00pm, while the deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing reg. No. KL- 43/A 5845, a car bearing registration No.KL-01-AU-1235 driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motorcycle. As a result of the accident, the deceased had sustained serious injuries and later succumbed to the injuries. The claimants, being the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹20,13,000/- limited to ₹10,00,000/-.

3. The first and second respondent/owner and driver of the offending car filed a written statement contending that the vehicle involved in the accident is insured with the 3^rd respondent and also asserted that the second respondent possessed a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. The 3^rd respondent/insurer filed a written statement admitting the validity of the policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed and denying liability. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A5 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹8,91,500/- as compensation under different heads with interest @9% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs against the 3^rd respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant has 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 appellant claims enhancement mainly under the following heads :-

Notional income :- The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that though an amount of ₹12,500/- was claimed, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹7,000/- as the monthly income of the injured who was an aluminium fabricator by profession. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that, as per the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [ 2011 (13) SCC 236 ], the income of a coolie for an accident in the year 2012 is fixed at ₹8,500/- per month and sought for enhancement of fixation of monthly income. Following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), in order to award a just compensation, I find it is appropriate to refix the monthly income as ₹8,500/-.

Compensation for loss of dependency :- Since the deceased was aged 22 years at the time of accident, following the judgment in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)], 40% of the future prospects is to be added towards the monthly income now fixed and the income would be ₹11,900/- (8,500 + 40% of 8500) for awarding compensation under the head, loss of dependency.

The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the deceased was aged 22 years and that the multiplier to be adopted was ‘18’ and not ‘17’. Following the judgment in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], I find force in the submission and the correct multiplier to be adopted is 18. The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that the tribunal has deducted 1/3rd instead of 1/2 towards personal and living expenses. Following the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), since the deceased was a bachelor, I find that 1/2 of the personal and living expenses ought to have been deducted for awarding compensation under th