The court underscores the need for proper compensation calculation while avoiding duplication under different heads.

J U D G M E N T

This appeal is filed by the 3rd respondent insurer in O.P.(MV) No.1208 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The respondents herein were the claimants before the tribunal.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: On 12.3.2014 at about 7.10. P.M., while the deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-15-AF-4158 from Puthiyastand to West Hill, a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KL-15 9460 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit down the deceased due to which the deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the same on the next day. The claimants who are the wife, son and mother of the deceased Aneesh Kumar, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹20,00,100/-.

3. Respondents 1 to 3 before the Tribunal are the owner, driver and insurer respectively of the offending bus. Before the tribunal, the first and second respondents filed a written statement denying negligence and disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. The third respondent insurer filed a written statement admitting the insurance policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed and denying negligence. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A7, B1 and B2 were marked. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹18,15,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the 3rd respondent being the insurer. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the 3rd respondent/insurer has come up with this appeal.

4. I have 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 has awarded more amounts under different heads, especially under the heads funeral expenses, loss of love and affection, Loss of estate, Compensation for pain and suffering, etc. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurer and claimants challenges the quantum mainly under the following heads :-

Compensation for loss of dependency The learned counsel appearing for the respondent claimant, however, submitted that the Tribunal has taken only ₹10,000/- as the monthly income of the deceased who was a partner cum industrial worker, earning more than ₹10,000/-.

Moreover, no future prospects were added to the income fixed.

It is true that no appeal/cross objection has been filed by the claimants to challenge the award. However, considering the fact that the Motor Vehicles Act is a benevolent legislation, I find it appropriate to interfere with the income fixed by the Tribunal. It is seen that the Tribunal considered the documents produced and fixed the income as ₹10,000/- without adding future prospects. I find that it is only just and reasonable, to meet the ends of justice, to add future prospects to the income fixed. Since the deceased was aged 42 years, by adding 25% 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 ₹12,500/- for awarding compensation under the head loss of dependency. Thus, the income for awarding compensation under the head loss of dependency will be ₹12,500/-

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal had deducted 1/4th instead of 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses, since the legal heirs were three in number. I find force in the submission. Since there were