The court clarified assessment methods for compensation in motor accident claims, emphasizing considerations for income calculation, dependency loss, and applicable legal precedents.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by claimants in O.P.(MV).No.

230/2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimants, on 27.08.2005, while the deceased was riding his motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-1- U-7133 from PMG vigilance office, a KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KL-15/5528 driven by the second respondent, in a rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle. As a result, the deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The legal heirs of the deceased approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹21,50,000/- which was limited to ₹20,00,000/-.

3. The 2^nd respondent/the driver of the offending vehicle remained ex-parte before the tribunal. The 1^st respondent/owner/KSRTC filed a written statement contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself and disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. Exts.A1 to A21 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a total compensation of ₹16,31,000/- with interest @9% per annum against the first respondent being the owner. 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 insurance company.

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

Notional income :- The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that though an amount of ₹20,000/- was claimed as the income of the deceased, who was a B.Arch graduate and had cleared the GATE examination, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹10,000/-. The learned standing counsel for the KSRTC, on the other hand, submitted that no document had been produced to prove the income of the deceased and that the tribunal had rightly taken ₹10,000/- as the monthly income. Considering the fact that the deceased was a B.Arch graduate, an extremely brilliant student and had also cleared the GATE examination, in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, I find it appropriate to re-fix the income at ₹12,000/-. On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the tribunal has added 50% future prospects. Since no appeal has been filed by the KSRTC, I am inclined to add 50%. By adding 50% future prospects as per National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662(SC)], to the income now fixed, the amount will be ₹18,000/- for awarding compensation under the head loss of dependency.

Loss of dependency :- The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the tribunal has adopted the multiplier as ‘17’ instead of ‘18’. The deceased was aged 25 years and did not attain 26 years at the time of accident. Hence, I find that the correct multiplier to be adopted is ‘18’. The deceased being a bachelor, the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is 1/2. Since the notional income after adding future prospects is re-fixed as ₹18,000/-, following the judgments in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], the compensation payable under the head loss of dependency is re-calculated thus as: (18000 x 12 x 18 x 1/2)

₹19,44,000/-. The tribunal has awarded an amount of ₹15,30,000/- under the head loss of dependency. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹4,14,000/- under the said head.

Funeral expenses :- The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that going by the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants