Compensation adjustments in motor vehicle accident claims emphasize consistency and avoid duplicity in awards.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the 3rd respondent insurer in O.P.

(MV) No.476 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded. The respondents herein are the claimants before the tribunal.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: On 05.03.2011, at about 08.30 p.m., while the deceased was riding a Honda Activa Scooter bearing registration No.KL-03P-5314 from Omalloor to Kaipattoor, a Mahindra Xylo Car bearing registration No.KL-03- T-5082 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motorcycle and as a result, the deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The claimants who are the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹23,00,250/- which is limited to ₹9,00,250/-.

3. The first, second and third respondents were the driver, owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle respectively before the tribunal. The third respondent - insurer filed a written statement admitting the insurance policy, disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A12 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, found that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the first respondent and the claimant was awarded a sum of ₹7,27,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs against the third respondent being the insurer. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded, the third respondent - insurance company has come up in appeal.

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

5. The learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant – insurer challenges the compensation mainly under the following heads: I. Notional income The learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant insurer submitted that the tribunal has fixed ₹10,000/- as the monthly income of the deceased without any evidence. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants contended that the deceased was an ex- military serviceman and was also engaged in agricultural activities. The learned counsel further submitted that even though 50% of the pension amount was deducted, going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236] , the notional monthly income even for a coolie for an accident in the year 2011 is ₹8,000/-. Hence, the income of the deceased would reasonably be higher than the said amount.

I find force in the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the monthly income fixed by the tribunal at ₹10,000/- cannot be said to be excessive and I do not find any reason to interfere with the income fixed by the tribunal.

II. Funeral expenses & loss of estate On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the tribunal had awarded an amount of ₹25,000/- & ₹1,00,000/- under the heads funeral expenses and loss of estate, respectively, whereas the claimants were entitled only for an amount of ₹15,000/- each under the afore two heads. Following the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), I find that they are entitled only for a total amount of ₹15,000/- each under the above two heads. Hence, there will be a deduction of ₹10,000/- & ₹85,000/- under the heads funeral expenses and loss of estate, respectively.

III.Loss of con