The court re-evaluated compensation in a motor accident claim, emphasizing adjustments for loss of income, dependency, and emotional sufferings based on precedents.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by claimants in O.P.(MV) No.

42/2014 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Kottayam, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimants, on 26.02.2012 at about

8.50 p.m., while the deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL- 38-B-980 through Kakkanad to Palarivattom road, a car bearing Reg.No.KL-07/BH-7460 driven by the first respondent, in a rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle. As a result, the deceased sustained serious injuries and after a long period of treatment he succumbed on 17.10.2012. The legal heirs of the deceased approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹52,78,000/-.

3. The 1^st respondent/the driver of the offending vehicle filed a written statement contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself. The 2^nd respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy but denying the liability. Exts.A1 to A32 and Exts.B1 to B5 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a total compensation of ₹25,23,079/- with interest @9% per annum against the respondent insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimants have come up in appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurance company.

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

Notional income :- The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the deceased was a final year Engineering (Mechanic) student aged 22 years at Skiltek Educational Institutions, Sivaram Menon road, Lisie junction, Kochi. He was also helping his father who was running Joel Videos at Edappally and was earning an amount of ₹6,000/-. The learned counsel further submitted that the tribunal has taken only an amount of ₹6,000/- as his income. Considering the fact that the deceased was a final year diploma student, and in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, I find it appropriate to re-fix the income at ₹10,000/-. On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the tribunal has added 50% was added towards future prospects. Since the deceased was aged 22 years at the time of the accident, and was not a permanent employee, by adding 40% 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 ₹14,000/- for awarding compensation under the head loss of dependency.

Loss of dependency :- Since the notional income after adding future prospects is re-fixed as ₹14,000/-, following the judgments in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], the compensation payable under the head loss of dependency is re-calculated thus as: (14000 x 12 x 18 x 1/2) ₹15,12,000/-. The tribunal has awarded an amount of ₹9,72,000/- under the head loss of dependency. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹5,40,000/- under the said head.

Loss of estate:- Towards the head loss of estate, it is seen that the tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹10,000/-, which is on the lower side. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that, going by the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), the appellants are entitled for a total compensation ₹15,000/- under the afore head. It is also submitted that, following Pranay Sethi (supra), a further 10% enhancement has to be given in a span of three years from 2017, totalling to ₹18,150/-. Since the tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹1