Court modifies compensation in motor accident claims, emphasizing loss of dependency calculations and appropriate interest rates.

JUDGMENT

Since these two appeals arise from the very same award dated 03.11.2016 in O.P.(MV) No.1552 of 2014 on the file of the additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, these appeals are heard together and being disposed of by this judgment. M.A.C.A. No.1452 of 2017 is filed by the 3^rd respondent/insurer, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal whereas M.A.C.A. No.2778 of 2017 is filed the claimants in the original petition, dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal

2. According to the claimants, on 17.03.2014 at about

20.40 hours, while the deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg No.KL 05/T-4345, a lorry bearing Reg. No.MH-16 AE/5557 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the deceased. As a result of the accident, he sustained serious injuries and later succumbed to those injuries on 27.03.2014. The legal heirs approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹1,11,31,000/- limited to ₹1,00,00,000/-.

3. Respondents 1 and 2/ the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle respectively, have filed a written statement contending that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent riding of the deceased and that the amount of compensation claimed is exorbitant and exaggerated. The 3^rd respondent – insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed and denying negligence. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A20 and Ext.B1 and B2 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded an amount of ₹37,50,850/- 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 insurer and the claimants have come up with the above appeals.

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

5. The learned counsel for the claimants and the learned Standing Counsel for the insurer challenges mainly under the following heads :-

Notional Income:- The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the deceased was working in Kuwait and was earning an amount of ₹51,050/- as monthly income. The learned counsel further submitted that as per Exts.A18 and A19 account statements, it is seen that he was regularly sending an average amount of ₹25,000/- to the account in Kerala, every month. The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that from 25.03.2013 to 25.02.2014, the deceased had sent an amount of ₹3,30,820/- to Kerala though his account and thus the average monthly amount sent to his account is around ₹27,000/-. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurance company, however submits that Exts.A18 and A19 does not reflect ₹25,000/- being sent every month. I have considered the arguments put forth by both sides. Exts.A18 and A19 account statements for the period from 25.03.2013 to 25.02.2014, reflects a total amount of ₹3,30,820/- sent to his account. As per Exts.A17 salary certificate, his monthly income is shown as ₹51,000/-. Considering the aforefacts, I find that since he was working abroad, a deduction of 50% of the said salary towards his personal expenses would be just and reasonable. However, in order to meet the ends of justice, I find it appropriate to fix his monthly income as ₹25,000/-. The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that while awarding compensation, the tribunal omitted to add future prospects. Since the deceased was aged 38 years at the time of the accident, following the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi & Ors [2017 (4) KLT 662 SC], I find that 40% future prospects is to be added