The enhancement of compensation involves re-evaluating dependency loss and avoiding duplication in claims.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the legal heirs of the claimant in O.P (MV)

No.324 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. The respondents herein are the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimants, on 31.03.2014, while the deceased was crossing the public road, suddenly a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-33C-9438 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the deceased. As a result of the accident, he 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 ₹20,00,000/-.

3. The 1st respondent/owner and the 2nd respondent/driver of the offending vehicle remained ex parte before the tribunal. The 3^rd respondent/insurer filed a written statement admitting the validity of the policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. It was further contended that the 2^nd respondent has no licence to ride the motorcycle. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A7 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹11,48,300/- 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, and directed to recover the same from respondents 1 and 2. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the legal heirs of the claimant has come up in appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned standing counsel for the 3^rd respondent. Though notice was served, respondents 1 and 2 chose not to appear before this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement for the compensation under the following heads:

Notional income :- The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that though an amount of ₹15,000/- was claimed as the income of the deceased, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹9,000/- who was an agriculturist cum photographer by profession. The learned counsel sought for enhancement on the ground that the deceased was a photographer by profession. On a perusal of the award, it is seen that no documents have been produced to prove the income of the deceased. Considering the fact that he was a photographer by profession, in order to award just and reasonable compensation, I find it appropriate to refix the income of the deceased as ₹10,500/-.

Compensation for loss of dependency :- The learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company submitted that the Tribunal had taken 15% towards future prospects instead of 10%. The deceased was aged 51 years at the time of the accident, going by the judgment in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)], I find that 10% future prospects are to be added towards the monthly income for calculation of loss of dependency. By adding 10% future prospects, the monthly income would be ₹11,550/- (10,500 + 10% of 10,500) for awarding compensation under the head, loss of dependency.

Accordingly, following Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], and Pranay Sethi (supra), the total compensation payable under the head loss of dependency is recalculated thus: ₹10,16,400/- (11,550x12x11x2/3). The tribunal had granted an amount of ₹9,10,800/- under the said head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹1,05,600/- under the head loss of dependency.

Compensation for loss of estate :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal hast granted only an amount of ₹5,