Appellate courts have discretion to enhance compensation awards based on evidence of actual income and justifiable future loss calculations in negligence cases.

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the claimants in OP(MV) No.2790 of 2012 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimants was that on 04.06.2012, while the deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.TN-38-AF-3735, another motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-50-B-1752 ridden by the second 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 ₹45,34,000/-.

3. Respondents 1 and 2, who were the owner and rider of the offending vehicle respectively, 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. Exts.A1 to A17, 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 rider of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of ₹15,18,170/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the third respondent being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimants have come up in appeal.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants claims enhancement under the following heads:

5.1. Notional income - The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was running a textile and tailoring shop and was earning ₹25,000/- per month, however, the tribunal has fixed the monthly income notionally at ₹7,000/-, which is on the lower side. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer, however, submits that no evidence was adduced by the appellants to prove the income or avocation of the deceased. The learned counsel for the appellants relied on Exts.A7 to A10 documents to prove the income and avocation of the deceased. I have perused Exts.A7 and A10 series. Ext.A7 is a certified copy of membership certificate issued by the ‘Kerala Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samithi’, which reveals that the deceased was a member thereof. Ext.A10 series consists of bills issued in the name of the deceased as well as ‘New Star Textiles’ during the period from October 2011 to May 2012. A perusal of Exts.A7 to A10 reveals that the deceased was running a textile and tailoring shop. Hence, considering the afore documents, I find it appropriate to refix the monthly income of the deceased at ₹12,000/-.

5.2. Loss of consortium/loss of love & affection - The learned counsel for the appellants submits that since there are three legal heirs, the appellants are entitled to get a total compensation of ₹1,20,000/- towards loss of consortium, whereas the tribunal awarded only ₹40,000/-, which is per se illegal. On a perusal of the impugned award, it is seen that the tribunal awarded ₹40,000/- towards loss of consortium and ₹1,50,000/- towards loss of love & affection. The tribunal was wrong in awarding compensation of ₹1,50,000/- towards loss of love and affection, which is impermissible and runs against the mandate in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662(SC)]. Once compensation is awarded under the head of loss of consortium, no amount shall be awarded towards loss of love and affection as it amounts to duplication of compensation as held in New India Assu