Compensation adjustments for loss of dependency and conventional damages must follow binding judicial precedents.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the third respondent/insurance company in O.P (MV) No.291 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-I, Manjeri challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. The respondents herein are the claimants 1 to 3, 5 and supplemental claimant 6 before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimants, on 25.10.2009 at 13.30 hours, while the deceased was driving his car bearing reg. No. KL-10-AA- 3400, a bus bearing registration No.KL-10-T-6745 driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the car. 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 ₹1,00,00,000/-.

3. The first and second respondent/owner and driver of the offending bus entered appearance but did not file a written statement. 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 A9 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹91,87,000/- 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. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the third respondent/insurance company has come up in appeal.

4. Heard the learned standing counsel for the appellant/insurer and the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants.

5. The learned standing counsel for the appellant/insurance company challenges the quantum of compensation under the following heads :

Notional income :- The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the deceased was a dentist aged 34 years at the time of the accident, and that the Tribunal had fixed the monthly income of the deceased at ₹40,000/-. It is further submitted that the deceased was practising as a dentist near the Co-operative Hospital, Malappuram and that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable.

On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that the income fixed by the tribunal is on the higher side.

On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the claimants have not produced any documents to prove the income of the deceased, who was a dentist by profession. Though it is contended that he was working abroad from 20.08.2008 to 30.04.2009, Ext.A9 passport reveals that his visa was cancelled on 05.03.2009. No document has been produced by the claimants to prove that the deceased was doing private practice. The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company also produced the Government Order dated 07.10.2009 wherein the salary of the senior resident doctors in five Government Medical Colleges is fixed as ₹23,000/-. Even a doctor doing private practice may earn more income than a government doctor. Considering the afore facts, I find that the income fixed by the tribunal is on the higher side. Considering the fact that the deceased was a dentist, though no document has been produced to prove his income, in order to award just compensation, I find it appropriate to refix the monthly income at ₹27,500/-.

Compensation for loss of dependency :- The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that the tribunal has mistakenly added 50% future prospects to the income fixed, instead of 40%. It is further submitted that going by the judgment in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)],