The court emphasized that compensation for loss due to death in a motor accident must consider all income sources and ensure just compensation reflecting suffering and dependency.

JUDGMENT

(Dated this the 2^nd day of March 2026)

Appellants are the legal heirs of one Achuthakurup, who died in a motor accident on 6.1.2017. They claimed compensation under sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act . On 6.1.2017 at about 12 a.m., the deceased Achuthakurup was walking through the extreme side of Kadiyangad – Peruvannamoozhi road junction, a motor cycle bearing registration No.KL:-56-E-7666, owned and driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the deceased. He was immediately taken to CHC Perambra and thereafter, to MCH, Kozhikode and from there referred to Baby Memorial Hospital, Kozhikode, where he was treated as inpatient and succumbed to the injuries on 9.1.2017. He was aged 77 years and was a retired Lab Asst. Gr.1 and agriculturist, earning Rs.31,156/- per month. The appellants claimed ₹15 lakhs as compensation.

2. The 1^st respondent remained ex parte and the 2^nd respondent filed a written statement admitting the insurance coverage of the offending vehicle at the time of accident. The negligence on the part of the 1^st respondent was denied and further contended that the amount of compensation claimed is excessive. The Tribunal, on the basis of Exts.A1 to A9 and B1, awarded a compensation of ₹7,54,343/-, rounded off to ₹7,54,400/- against the claim of ₹18,93,000/- limited to ₹15 lakhs finding that the accident was due to the negligent driving of the 1^st respondent. Dissatisfied by the amount of compensation awarded, this appeal is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the standing counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

4. Counsel for the appellants argued that the deceased was earning agricultural income from his own properties and together his pension, who was earning ₹31,156/- per month. But the Tribunal, without relying on Ext.Nos.A6 and A9 series, took only ₹3,000/- as agricultural income along with ₹15,000/- as pension. The tribunal ought to have granted the entire income claimed by the appellants as there was ample evidence before the Tribunal.

5. The appellants have produced photocopies of FD receipts as Ext.A6 series and A9 series assignment deeds and settlement deeds in the name of the deceased. But the same will not prove the income generated from the said properties. In the absence of any specific amount, the tribunal is justified in taking ₹3,000/- as agricultural income and together with pension, fixed the monthly income as ₹18000/-. Taking note of the fact that the 1^st appellant is the wife and appellant Nos.2 and 3 are the children, who are aged 43 and 33 years at the time of accident, and the fact that they are not depended upon the deceased, the Tribunal deducted a half as personal expenses. For future prospects, 25%

enhancement is taken and taking the multiplier as ‘5’ calculated the loss of dependency as ₹5,40,000/-. I do not find any error in calculating the total loss of dependency and therefore, the same is sustained.

6. For pain and suffering the appellants claimed ₹2 lakhs and the Tribunal awarded only ₹25,000/-. The accident happened on 6.1.2017 and he succumbed to the injuries on 9.1.2017 therefore, the deceased would have suffered much due to pain. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the amount of ₹25,000/- awarded under head of pain and suffering is on the lower side and to compensate the same, ₹10,000/- more is awarded.

7. Appellants are the wife and children of the deceased.

Placing reliance on Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru And Others [(2018) 18 SCC 130] , the appellants are entitled to get ₹40,000/- each plus