Compensation in motor accident claims must be just and reasonable, with proper calculations of notional income and interest rates.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimants in OP (MV) No.861 of

2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein are the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimants, on 22.05.2014, at about

7.45 p.m., while the deceased was walking through the road at Kothamangalam, a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-44/B- 6062 ridden by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the deceased and as a result, the deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries on 08.08.2014, while undergoing treatment. The claimants who are the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹39,00,500/-, which is limited to ₹30,00,000/-.

3. The first and second respondents/the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle respectively, did not file any written statement. The third respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the insurance policy, disputing the liability and the quantum of compensation claimed. It was contended that the deceased was negligently crossing roads after consuming alcohol. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A13 and Ext.B1 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 ₹20,22,044/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization against the third respondent insurer; and in default of payment as above, penal interest @ 11% per annum was also awarded. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimants have come up in appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned standing counsel for the respondent insurer.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants claims enhancement mainly under the following heads:

I. Notional Income The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though an amount of ₹15,000/- was claimed as the monthly income of the deceased, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹10,000/-. The learned counsel further submitted that the deceased was a headload worker and was aged 54 years at the time of accident. Considering the fact that he was a headload worker, I find that the notional income fixed by the tribunal is on the lower side. In order to award a just and reasonable compensation, I find it appropriate to re-fix the notional monthly income at ₹11,000/-.

II. Loss of dependency In view of the apex court judgment in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)], the appellants are entitled to an addition of 10% of the monthly notional income towards future prospects for the purpose of computing compensation under the head loss of dependency. However, the tribunal had taken 15% of the notional income towards future prospects. Since there is no appeal by the insurance company, I am inclined to adopt 15% of the notional monthly income towards future prospects. By adding 15% future prospects to the income now fixed, the income would be ₹12,650/- (₹11,000 + 15% of ₹11,000) for awarding compensation under the head, loss of dependency.

Accordingly, following the apex court judgments 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: ₹11,13,200/- (12,650 x 12 x 11 x 2/3). The tribunal had granted an amount of ₹10,12,044/- under the head loss of dependency. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹1,01,156/- under the afore head.

III. F