The court determined compensation based on established precedents regarding loss of dependency, refixing income, and awarding interest, leading to an additional compensation of ₹4,35,400/-.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimants in OP (MV) No.842 of

2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vatakara, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimants, on 18.01.2015 at about 4.30 p.m., while the deceased was pillion riding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-11-J-339 from Perambra to Payyoli, a goods autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-56-D-4841 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motorcycle and as a result, the deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries on 03.02.2015 while undergoing treatment. The claimants who are the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹36,45,000/- which is limited to ₹20,00,000/-.

3. The first respondent, the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle filed a written statement, admitting the accident and disputing the negligence attributed on his part in causing the accident. The second respondent – insurer filed a written statement, admitting the insurance policy, disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A9 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, found that the accident was due to negligence on the part of the first respondent and the appellants/claimants was awarded a sum of ₹7,59,600/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization against the second respondent being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimants have come up in appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned standing counsel for the respondent insurer.

5. The second appellant, the mother of the deceased, passed away during the pendency of the appeal. Hence, appellants 5 to 11 were impleaded as the legal heirs of the second appellant.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants claim enhancement mainly under the following heads:

I. Notional Income The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though an amount of ₹14,000/- was claimed as the notional monthly income of the deceased, who was a carpenter by profession, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹8,000/-. The learned counsel relied on Ext.A1 income certificate issued from Akshaya Wood Industries and Furniture. The issuer of Ext.A1 certificate was examined as PW1. The learned counsel further submitted that in the F.I.Statement also, he has stated that the deceased was a carpenter by profession. Though PW1 had stated that he has been paid ₹750/- per day, it is not clear as to how many days he had worked in a month. Apart from the deposition, no other evidence has been adduced to prove the income of the deceased. Considering the fact that the deceased was a carpenter by profession, and in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, I find it appropriate to re-fix the monthly income at ₹12,000/-.

II. Loss of dependency Since the deceased was aged 56 years at the time of accident, following the judgment in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)], 10% of the future prospects is to be added towards the monthly income now fixed and the income would be ₹13,200/- (12,000 x 10% + 12,000) for awarding compensation under the head, loss of dependency. Though there were four legal heirs, the tribunal had taken the wife and the mother of the deceased as the dependents of the deceased and the deduction towards his personal and living expenses was taken as 1/3;