Compensation awarded in fatal motor accident claims must accurately reflect notional income and future prospects, while ensuring deductions for personal expenses are justly applied.

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the second respondent insurer in OP(MV) No.1212 of 2010 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants. The respondents 1 to 5 herein were the claimants before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimants was that on 31.05.2010, while the deceased was walking towards Kolathoor, a car bearing Reg.No.KL-58-2170 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit him, 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 ₹16,50,000/-.

3. The first respondent, who was the driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle, remained ex parte before the tribunal. 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. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A8 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 ₹15,64,600/- rounded off to ₹15,65,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization against the second respondent being the insurer. The respondent insurer has come up in appeal, alleging that the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal is excessive.

4. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/insurer and the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants.

5. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant assails the impugned award, alleging that the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal is excessive, mainly under the following heads:

5.1. Notional income & Loss of dependency - The learned Standing Counsel for the insurer submits that the deceased was aged 44 years at the time of the accident and was a coolie by profession; however, while assessing compensation towards future prospects, the tribunal added 30% future prospects to the notional income. It is further submitted that since the deceased was not permanently employed, as per the judgment of the apex court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662(SC)], future prospects to be added to the income was 25% and not 30%. I find force in the submission of the learned Standing Counsel and hold that future prospects to be added to the income is 40% and not 50%, since the deceased was not a permanent employee.

5.1.1. On a perusal of the impugned award, it is seen that the tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased notionally at ₹5,000/-. 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 2010, the monthly income of a coolie is fixed at ₹7,500/-. Though there is no appeal filed by the claimants, the Motor Vehicles Act being a benevolent legislation, I deem it appropriate to refix the monthly income of the deceased at ₹7,500/- following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra). Thus, after adding 25% future prospects as per the judgment of the apex court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662(SC)], the income would be ₹9,375/- (7500 + 1875).

5.1.2. The learned Standing Counsel further submits that admittedly, there were only five legal heirs and hence, the income to be deducted towards personal and other living expenses of the deceased is one-fourth, whereas the tribunal deducted one-fifth, which cannot be sustained. I find force in the submission