Compensation adjustments in fatal accident claims must adhere to established precedents, ensuring fair assessment of dependency losses and clarifying penal interest applicability.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimants in O.P(MV) No.297 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala, dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. The respondent herein was the 3^rd respondent before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimants, on 04.12.2011 at about 05.45 pm, while the deceased was travelling on a motorcycle bearing reg. No. KL-35/A-8942, a mini lorry bearing reg. No. KL-4/M-3178, driven by the 1^st respondent, came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result of the accident, the deceased had sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The claimants, being the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹38,40,000/- limited to ₹30,00,000/-.

3. The first and second respondent/driver and owner 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. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A28 were marked and Pws 1 to 3 were examined. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹16,03,682/- as compensation under different heads with interest @7.5% 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 in default of payment as above, penal interest @ 9% per annum was also awarded. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, have come up in appeal.

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

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

Notional income :- The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that though an amount of ₹20,000/- was claimed as the income of the deceased, who was a Diploma Holder in Civil Engineering, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹10,000/-. It is further submitted that the deceased was a qualified Draftsman as evidenced by Exts.A26 to A28. Considering the documents produced as well as the avocation of the deceased, I find it appropriate to refix the monthly income as ₹13,000/-.

Compensation for loss of dependency :- The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company relying on the judgment in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)]submitted that the tribunal ought to have added only 25% towards future prospects, instead of 30%, since the deceased who was aged 49 years at the time of the accident, was self-employed.

I find force in the argument of the learned standing counsel.

Following the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), since there is no evidence to show that the deceased was a permanent employee, 25% future prospects is to be added towards the monthly income now fixed and the income would be ₹16,250/- (13,000 + 25% of 13,000)

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: ₹16,90,000/- (16,250x12x13x2/3). The tribunal had granted an amount of ₹13,52,052/- under the said head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹3,37,948/- under the head loss of dependency.

Compensation for loss of estate :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal has