The court reaffirmed guidelines for calculating compensation in accident claims, emphasizing accurate income assessment and prohibition against duplicating compensation for losses.

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the claimants in OP(MV) No.306 of

2016 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Taliparamba, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondent herein was the third respondent before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimant was that on 31.01.2014, while the deceased was standing at Morani of Vellad Village, a tipper bearing Reg.No.KL-59-C-6040 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit him, whereby he sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The claimants, being the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹25,00,000/-.

3. Respondents 1 and 2, who are the owner and driver of the offending vehicle respectively, filed a joint statement, denying all the allegations. It was also contended that the vehicle was validly insured with the third respondent insurer. 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 ₹17,03,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the third respondent being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimants have come up in appeal.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer.

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

5.1. Notional income - The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was aged 48 years at the time of the accident and was a technician at Saudi Arabia, earning ₹50,000/- per month, however, the tribunal has fixed the monthly income notionally only at ₹10,000/-. The appellants relied on Ext.A5 Employee & Equipment Card and Ext.A6 Job Offer Letter to prove that the deceased was earning the said amount. On a perusal of Ext.A6 Job Offer Letter, it is seen that Ext.A6 was issued on 10.02.2014, which is after the accident. Since Ext.A6 is issued after the accident, it does not support the claim regarding the income of the deceased. Other than Exts.A5 and A6, no document was produced by the appellants to prove the income at the time of the accident. However, considering Exts.A5 and A6 documents and also, considering the age of the deceased, I find it appropriate to refix the notional income of the deceased at ₹20,000/-.

5.2. Loss of dependency - Since the monthly income of the deceased is refixed at ₹20,000/-, compensation towards loss of dependency has to be recalculated. The deceased was 48 years old at the time of the accident and thus, after adding 25% of the notional income towards future prospects following the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662(SC)], the income would be ₹25,000/- (20000 + 5000). Since there were four legal heirs, viz., the wife, two children and mother, one-fourth of the income had to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, following the judgments in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], the appellants will be entitled to get a total compensation of ₹29,25,000/- (25000 x 12 x 13 x 3/4) towards loss of dependency. Hence, there will be an additional amount of ₹16,77,000/- under this head.

5.3. Loss of consortium/loss of love & affection - The learned counsel for the appellants submits that since there are four legal heirs, the appellants are entitled to get a total compensation of ₹1,60,000/- towards loss of consortium, whereas th