Compensation adjustments in motor accident claims, based on victim's earnings and relevant legal precedents.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimants in OP (MV) No.1194 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein are the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimants, on 18.05.2010, while the deceased was travelling as a passenger in a KSRTC bus driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, through Aluva–Ankamali road, the door of the driver’s cabin was opened and the driver while trying to close the door, lost control and thus the bus fell into a road side pit and as a result of which the deceased sustained serious injuries and subsequently succumbed to those injuries. The claimants who are the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹6,00,000/-.

3. The first, second and third respondents were the owner, driver and the insurer of the offending vehicle respectively. The third respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the insurance policy and disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A14 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, found that the accident was due to negligence on the part of the second respondent and the appellants/claimants were awarded a sum of ₹3,92,500/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization against the third respondent insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimants have come up in appeal.

4. Heard the learned standing counsel for the respondent insurer and the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent/KSRTC.

I. Notional Income On a perusal of the award, it is seen that though the appellants had claimed an amount of ₹12,000/- as the monthly income of the deceased, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹6,000/-. Even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236] , the monthly income of a coolie for an accident in 2010 is taken at ₹7,500/-. However, considering the fact that the deceased was a supervisor in Metro Trading Syndicate and in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, I find it appropriate to re-fix the monthly income notionally at ₹8,000/-.

II. Loss of dependency Since the deceased was aged 58 years at the time of accident, following the judgment in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)], 10%

of the future prospects is to be added towards the monthly income now fixed and the income would be ₹8,800/- (8,000 x 10% + 8,000) for awarding compensation under the head, loss of dependency. Since there are three legal heirs for the deceased, the deduction to be made towards his personal and living expenses is 1/3 and the multiplier to be adopted is “9”. Hence, following the judgments of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], the total compensation payable under the afore head is recalculated thus: ₹6,33,600/- (8,800 x 12 x 9 x 2/3). The tribunal had granted an amount of ₹3,36,000/- under the said head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹2,97,600/- under the head loss of dependency.

III. Funeral expenses On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the tribunal had granted only an amount of ₹7,500/- under the head funeral expenses. However, the claimants are entitled for an amount of ₹15,000/-, following the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra). Also, following the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), I that they are entitled for a total amount of ₹18,150/- after adding 10% enhancement in a span of three years after 2017. H