The tribunal's determination of monthly income for compensation purposes is justified when supported by verified salary documentation, and an interest rate of 9% per annum is considered just and reasonable in motor accident compensation claims.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the 3^rd respondent/insurance company in O.P.(MV) No.977 of 2015 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha, challenging the award passed by the tribunal. The respondents herein were the claimants before the tribunal.

2. The brief facts of the case is as follows :-

On 02.08.2015 while the deceased was riding a motorcycle, a lorry bearing registration No.KL-07-BX-3862 driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle. As a result of the accident, he had sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The legal heirs of the deceased approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹45,53,755/-.

3. The 1^st respondent/driver and the 2^nd respondent/owner of the offending lorry filed a written statement denying the negligence attributed against the 1^st respondent. It was further contended that the 1^st respondent was holding a valid driving licence and that the vehicle was having a valid insurance coverage. It was also contended that the compensation claimed under various heads are exorbitant. The 3^rd respondent/insurer filed a written statement admitting the policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A14 and Ext.X1 were marked and PW1 was examined. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹50,36,874/- with interest @ 9% per annum as compensation under various heads against the 3^rd respondent being the insurer. Challenging the award passed by the tribunal, the insurance company has come up in appeal.

4. Heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/insurer and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. No appearance for respondents 3 and 4. 5. The learned standing counsel for the appellant/insurer challenges mainly under the following heads:-

Notional income :- The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that the income fixed by the tribunal is on the higher side. As per Ext.A9 salary certificate, the salary of the deceased was ₹20,142/- per month. However, the tribunal took the monthly income as ₹25,547/-. The tribunal ought to have adopted the income reflected in Ext. A9 for the purpose of computation of compensation.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants submitted that, at the time of his death, the deceased was drawing a gross salary of ₹25,547/-, as reflected in Ext. X1 and therefore contended that the income fixed by the tribunal is correct and does not warrant any interference Ext. X1, was summoned by the courts per order in I.A. No.

457 of 2018. The District Accounts Officer was examined as PW1 to prove Ext.X1. On a perusal of the chief examination, it is seen that PW1 stated that Ext.X1 is the proof the last drawn salary of the deceased for the month of July 2015. Since, Ext. X1 did not contain any date, during cross-examination, a suggestion was put to PW1 whether it reflected the salary details of the deceased immediately preceding the accident. PW1 categorically deposed that the document produced pertained to the salary drawn by the deceased in the month of July.

As per Ext. X1, the salary of the deceased was ₹25,547/-. I find that the tribunal rightly fixed the monthly income of the deceased at ₹25,547/-. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the same.

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurance company also challenged the rate of interest awarded by the tribunal. On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the tribunal has awarded interest only at the rate of 9% per annum. I find it to be just and reasonable and hence I do no