Assessment of compensation in motor accident cases must consider appropriate legal precedents for income estimation and category adjustments.

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the claimants in OP(MV) No.701 of

2013 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondent herein was the second respondent before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimants was that on 26.07.2013, while the deceased was standing by the side of Cumbammettu - Amayar public road, a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.TN-60/W-6825 ridden by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit him, whereby he sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the injuries the next day. The claimants, being the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹10,00,000/-.

3. The first respondent, who was the owner-cum-rider of the offending vehicle, filed a written statement before the tribunal, contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. The second respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Exts.A1 to A9 & B1 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 ₹5,72,750/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the second respondent being the insurer; and in default of payment as above, penal interest @ 11% per annum was also awarded. 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 a daily labourer and was earning ₹12,000/- per month, however, the tribunal has fixed the monthly income notionally only at ₹6,000/-. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.

[ (2011) 13 SCC 236 ], for an accident that occurred in 2013, the monthly income of a coolie is fixed at ₹9,000/- and seeks for an enhancement of the income fixed. Accordingly, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), I deem it appropriate to refix the monthly income of the deceased at ₹9,000/-.

5.2. Loss of dependency - Since the monthly income of the deceased is refixed at ₹9,000/-, compensation towards loss of dependency has to be recalculated. The learned counsel for the appellants seeks for addition of future prospects to the income for assessing compensation towards loss of dependency. It is seen that the deceased was aged 60 years at the time of the accident. Therefore, he would not fall within the age group for the addition of future prospects. The learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the tribunal wrongly adopted the multiplier “7” instead of “9”. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants and adopt “9” as the multiplier for assessing compensation since the deceased was 60 years at the time of accident. Since there are three legal heirs, the income to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased is 1/3. Accordingly, following the judgments in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662(SC)] and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], the appellants will be entitled to get a total compensation of ₹6,48,000/-