Compensation calculation in motor accident claims should incorporate future income prospects, with modifications to the awarded amount reflecting legal precedents.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the 3^rd respondent/insurance company in O.P.(MV) No.919 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. The respondents herein were the claimants before the Tribunal. Cross Objection No.73 of 2015 in the appeal has been filed by the claimants, dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation in the impugned award.

2. According to the claimant, on 06.08.2013 at about 3.15 p.m., while the deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KL-55-K-7773, a bus bearing Reg. No.KL-08-AW-7676 driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle whereby he sustained serious injuries and later succumbed to those injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹22,60,000/-.

3. Respondents 1 and 2 who were the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle respectively, remained ex parte before the tribunal. The 3^rd respondent, insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy, but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed and denying liability contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant himself. Before the tribunal, PW1 to PW3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A17 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 rider of the offending vehicle and awarded a total compensation of ₹13,41,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest @9% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the 3^rd respondent, being the insurer. Challenging the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the third respondent/insurer as well as the claimants/cross-objectors have preferred the present appeal and cross objection respectively. 4. I have heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company and the learned counsel appearing for the cross objectors/claimants.

5. Both the insurer as well as the claimant/ cross objector had challenged the impugned award in the following heads:-

Notional income :- The learned counsel for the claimants/

cross-objectors submitted that though an amount of ₹10,000/- was taken as the income, the tribunal omitted to add future prospects to the income while awarding compensation towards loss of dependency. Since the deceased was aged 22 years at the time of the accident, following the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi & Ors [2017 (4) KLT 662 SC], I find that 40% future prospects are to be added to the notional income for awarding compensation under the head, loss of dependency. By adding 40% future prospects to the income fixed, the amount will be ₹14,000/- (10,000 + 40% of 10,000) for the purpose of awarding compensation under the head loss of dependency.

Loss of dependency:- Since the deceased was a bachelor, the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is 1/2. Since the monthly income after adding 40% future prospects is fixed at ₹14,000/-, following the judgments of the apex court in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], the compensation payable under the head loss of dependency is recalculated thus: ₹15,12,000/- (14,000, x 12 x 18, x 1/2) as the total compensation payable. The tribunal has awarded an amount of ₹10,80,000/- under the head loss of dependency. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹4,32,000/- under the afore head.

Loss of love and affection/ Loss of consortium:- The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that towards loss of love and affec