In determining motor accident compensation, courts assess negligence, income, and permissible damages based on established legal precedents.

JUDGMENT

[MACA Nos.1267/2016, 1268/2016]

These two appeals are filed by the claimants as well as the insurer in the claim petition challenging the Award in O.P.(MV) 1261/2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, hence the appeals are heard together and are disposed of by this judgment. M.A.C.A.No.1267 of 2016 is filed by the appellants/claimants, dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, whereas M.A.C.A.No.1268 of 2016 is filed by the insurer, challenging the compensation awarded. The parties are hereinafter referred to as arrayed in the O.P.(MV).

2. The brief facts of the case is as follows: on

28.12.2012, at about 06.00 p.m., while the deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-43/B-2309 through Kundanoor – Island Road, a lorry bearing registration No.KL-

12/F-6750, which was parked on the eastern side of the road, suddenly moved onto the road in a rash and negligent manner by the first respondent and hit the motorcycle. As a result of the accident, the deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries on 31.12.2012 while undergoing treatment. The claimants who are the legal heirs of the deceased approached the tribunal, claiming a total compensation of ₹39,00,000/-, which is limited to ₹22,00,000/-.

3. The first respondent, the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle, entered the appearance, but did not file a written statement. The second respondent – insurer filed a written statement, admitting the insurance policy, disputing the liability and the quantum of compensation claimed. It was further contended the deceased also had contributory negligence in causing the accident. Before the tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A16 and Ext.X1 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, found that the accident was due to negligence on the part of first respondent and the claimants were awarded a sum of ₹19,84,984/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization against the second respondent being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded as well as challenging the compensation awarded, the claimants as well as the insurer have come up with the above appeals.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants and the learned standing counsel for the insurance company.

5. The learned counsel for the claimants as well as the insurer mainly challenged the quantum of compensation under the following heads: I. Notional income The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that though an amount of ₹12,000/- was claimed as the monthly income of the deceased, who was working as a Supervisor in M.D. Evergreen Transports, the tribunal had taken only ₹6,000/-. The learned counsel relied on Exts. A13 and A14 salary certificates. The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company, however, submitted that in Ext. A14, the monthly salary shown was ₹6,000/- and the other allowances and commission were shown as ₹6,000/-, totalling ₹12,000/-. The details of the salary given are not clear in Ext.A14. The learned counsel for the claimants further submitted that the income of the deceased was proved through PW1, the Proprietor of Evergreen Transports, who deposed that he was paying an amount of ₹12,000/- to the deceased. Considering the evidence of PW1, Exts. A13 and A14 salary certificates, and the vouchers produced, I find it just and reasonable to re-fix the notional monthly income at ₹10,000/-.

II. Loss of dependency Since the deceased was aged 37 years at the time of accident, following the judgment in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)], 40% of the future prospects is to be added towards the monthly income now fixed and the income would be ₹14,000/- (