The court emphasized adherence to established judicial principles for compensation calculation, including proper adjustments for dependency, personal expenses, and conventional heads, leading to a total compensation of ₹16,03,200.

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the third respondent insurer in OP(MV) No.1236 of 2011 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants. The respondents 1 to 3 herein were the claimants and respondents 4 & 5 herein were the respondents 1 & 2 before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimants was that on 04.06.2010, while the deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-01-AE- 5822, a pickup jeep bearing Reg.No.KL-10-AA-1048 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 ₹7,00,000/-.

3. Respondents 1 and 2, who were the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle, 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, Exts.A1 to A8, B1 & B2 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 ₹21,96,250/-, which was rounded off to ₹21,96,500/-, as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization against the third respondent being the insurer. 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/respondent insurer and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3/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. Loss of dependency - The learned Standing Counsel for the insurer submits that the deceased, who was aged 28 years at the time of the accident, was a conductor in a bus; however, the tribunal, after fixing the notional monthly income of the deceased at ₹7,500/-, added 50% future prospects to the income for assessing compensation towards loss of dependency. 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 40% and not 50%. 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%. Accordingly, after adding 40% future prospects, the income would be ₹10,500/- (7500 + 3000).

5.1.1. The learned Standing Counsel further submits that there were only three legal heirs and hence, the income to be deducted towards personal and other living expenses of the deceased is one-third, whereas the tribunal deducted one-fourth. On a perusal of the impugned award, it is seen that there were only three legal heirs, viz., wife, daughter and mother; and hence, I hold that the deduction towards personal expenses ought to have been one-third and not one-fourth.

5.1.2. Accordingly, when recalculating the compensation towards loss of dependency applying the above standards and following the judgments in Pranay Sethi [supra] and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], the claimants will only be entitled to get a total compensation of ₹14,28,000/- (10500 x 12 x 17 x 2/3) towards loss of dependency, whereas the tribunal awarded ₹17,21,250/-. Hence, there will be a reduct