The court recalibrated motor accident compensation using updated income evidence while applying established legal principles regarding future prospects and deducting overly generous tribunal awards.

JUDGMENT

The appeal has been filed by the third respondent insurer in OP(MV) No.730 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mavelikkara, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants, whereas the Cross Objection has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the tribunal.

3. The case of the claimants was that on 26.03.2011, while the deceased was pedalling a bicycle, the defending vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-31-5589 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the deceased, 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 ₹10,00,000/-.

4. Respondents 1 and 2, who are the driver and the 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. Before the tribunal, PW1 & PW2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A10 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 ₹14,97,500/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the third respondent being the insurer. Challenging the impugned award, the claimants as well as the insurer have come up before this Court.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the claimants and the learned Standing Counsel for the insurer.

6. The learned Standing Counsel for the insurer and the learned counsel for the claimants challenge the impugned award mainly under the following heads:

6.1. Notional income - The learned counsel for the claimants submits that the deceased was a cook-cum-parotta maker and was earning ₹600/- per day, however, the tribunal has fixed the monthly income notionally only at ₹5,000/-. Relying on the depositions of PW1/wife of the deceased and PW2/the employer who issued Ext.A10 employment-cum-salary certificate, the learned counsel submits that the insurer had not raised any challenge regarding the avocation of the deceased. On a perusal of the impugned award as well as the documents produced, I find that though Ext.A10 certificate was produced, there is nothing on record other than the deposition of PW2 to show that the deceased was paid ₹600/- per day. However, considering the fact that the insurer had not raised any challenge regarding the avocation of the deceased as a cook, I deem it appropriate to refix the monthly income of the deceased at ₹9,500/-.

6.2. Loss of dependency - Since the monthly income of the deceased is refixed at ₹9,500/-, compensation towards loss of dependency has to be recalculated. The learned Standing Counsel for the insurer submits that the deceased, who was 38 years old at the time of the accident, was not permanently employed, however, while assessing compensation towards loss of dependency, the tribunal added 50% future prospects to the income, which is unsustainable. I find force in the submission of the learned Standing Counsel. As per the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662(SC)], future prospects to be added to the income of the deceased is

40% and not 50%. Thus, after adding 40% future prospects, the income would be ₹13,300/- (9500 + 3800). Accordingly, following the judgments in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2)