Insurance appeal dismissed; compensation deemed reasonable despite appellant's objections regarding calculation.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the third respondent/insurer in O.P.

(MV) No.907 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, challenging the quantum of compensation. The respondents herein are the claimants 2 to 5 before the tribunal.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: On 12.01.2011, at about 07.00 p.m., while the deceased was riding his scooter bearing registration No.KL-40/1579 along with his wife, from Irinjalakuda to Iringote, a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-07/BN-8590 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the scooter 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 ₹12,00,000/-.

3. Though notice was served on the first respondent, the driver of the offending vehicle, he remained absent and was set ex parte before the tribunal. The second respondent, the owner of the offending vehicle filed a written statement contending that the first respondent was holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. The third respondent – insurer filed a written statement, admitting the insurance policy and disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A13 and Ext.B1 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, found that accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the first respondent and the claimants were awarded a sum of ₹15,19,521/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization being the third respondent insurer. Challenging the quantum of compensation, the third respondent - insurance company has come up in appeal.

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

5. The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that the tribunal had awarded huge amounts under the heads loss of love and affection, pain and suffering, loss of consortium and loss of earnings. It was further contended that, though the claim was treated as a death case, the tribunal awarded loss of earnings for a period of 29 months, which is wholly unsustainable.

6. On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹4,500/- as the notional income of the deceased and no future prospects was added to the income. Even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236] , the monthly income of a coolie for an accident in 2011 is taken at ₹8,000/- and by adding 10% future prospects, the amount would be ₹8,800/-. If ₹8,800/- had been fixed as the monthly income, the compensation payable under the head loss of dependency would have been ₹4,92,800/- (₹8,800 × 12 × 7 × 2/3), and an additional amount of ₹2,09,300/- would have been payable to the legal heirs of the deceased.

7. Further, on a perusal of the award, it is seen that under the head of bystander expenses, the tribunal had awarded only an amount of ₹87,000/-, taking only ₹3,000/- per month for 29 months, which is on the lower side. On an overall consideration of the award and the contentions now raised by the insurance company, I find that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and reasonable, and therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the same.

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the insurance company is dismissed.

Sd/-