The judgment affirms the awarded compensation in a motor accident claim despite challenges regarding quantification methods, emphasizing the tribunal's discretion in determining damages.

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the insurer/ 3^rd respondent in OP(MV) No.419 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. The respondents herein are the claimants before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimants, on 10.01.2013 at about 8.30 p.m., while the deceased was travelling in motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL 9AD/6800, a lorry bearing Reg. No.KL 11 AC/7156 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner collided with the motorcycle, as a result of which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and subsequently succumbed to the same. The legal heirs of the deceased thereupon approached the Tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹13,00,000/-.

3. The first and second respondents/the registered owner and the driver of the offending vehicle, respectively, filed a written statement denying negligence. The 3^rd respondent/ insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but denying the negligence of the second respondent. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A8 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of ₹16,47,000/- with interest @9% per annum as compensation under different heads against the 3^rd respondent being the insurer. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the insurer has come up in appeal.

4. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company and the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants.

5. The main grounds raised by the insurer in the appeal, challenging the quantum, are under the heads love and affection and also addition of 50% future prospects to the income fixed. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimants submitted that the income taken by the tribunal is only ₹6,000/- whereas, 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 2013 is fixed at ₹9,000/-. The learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company, however, submitted that even if ₹9,000/- is taken as the income, the other heads awarded by the tribunal are on the higher side.

On a perusal of the award, it is seen that under certain heads the compensation awarded is on the higher side, like loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, etc. The notional income taken was only ₹6,000/- instead of ₹9,000/-, and if the income is increased to ₹9,000/-, the compensation as a whole would stand equalized. Considering the aforefacts, I do not find any reason to interfere with the award passed.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-