Compensation in fatal accident claims must accurately reflect future earning potential and follow established precedents for just adjudication.

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the claimants in OP(MV) No.436 of 2008 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimants was that on 22.01.2008, while the deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-6- D/4586, a bus bearing Reg.No.KL-17-D/3993 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle, whereby he sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The claimants, being the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹25,00,000/-.

3. Respondents 1 and 2, who are the driver and owner of the offending vehicle respectively, remained ex parte before the tribunal. The third respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. PW1 was examined Exts.A1 to A14 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 ₹17,57,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the third respondent being the insurer. 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, who was aged 24 years at the time of the accident, was a B.Tech graduate, however, the tribunal has fixed the monthly income notionally only at ₹10,000/-, which is on the lower side. Considering the fact that the deceased was a B.Tech graduate at the time of the accident and also the fact that the accident occurred in 2008, I deem it appropriate to refix the monthly income of the deceased at ₹12,000/-.

5.2. Loss of dependency - Since the monthly income of the deceased is refixed at ₹12,000/-, compensation towards loss of dependency has to be recalculated. The deceased was 24 years old at the time of the accident and as per the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662(SC)], 40% future prospects can be added to the income now fixed. Thus, after adding 40% of the notional income towards future prospects, the amount would be arrived at ₹16,800/- (12000 + 4800). Accordingly, following the judgments in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], the appellants will be entitled to get a total compensation of ₹18,14,400/- (16800 x 12 x 18 x 1/2) towards loss of dependency. Hence, there will be an additional amount of ₹1,94,400/- under this head.

5.3. Loss of estate - The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the tribunal has not awarded compensation towards loss of estate. It is further submitted that as per the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), the compensation under conventional heads ought to have been ₹15,000/- and further, 10% enhancement has to be given in a span of three years from 2017. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. Accordingly, following the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), I deem it appropriate to award to the appellants a total compensation of ₹18,150/- towards loss of estate.

5.4. Funeral expenses - On a perusal of the award, it is seen