An appellate court will not interfere with the tribunal's determination of notional monthly income in motor accident cases if the amount awarded is found to be just and reasonable, considering the age and occupation of the deceased.

JUDGMENT

[ MACA NO.1224/2020 & CO Nos.146/2021 ]

This appeal is filed by the 3^rd respondent insurance company in O.P.(MV) No.928 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. The respondents herein were the claimants of the original petition. The Cross Objection No.146 of 20121 is filed by the claimants, the legal heirs of the deceased, seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: On 09.03.2015, at about 06.15 a.m., while the deceased was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-04-G-7597 through Vayanakam – Pallimukku road, a truck bearing registration No.KL-04-H-2493 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the deceased and as a result, he sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The claimants who are the legal heirs of the deceased approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹34,00,000/-.

3. Though notice was served on the first and second respondents, the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle respectively, they remained absent and were set ex parte before the tribunal. The third respondent-insurer filed a written statement admitting the insurance policy, disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A13 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, found that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the second respondent and awarded a sum of ₹24,14,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs against the third respondent being the insurer. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded, the 3^rd respondent - insurance company and the claimants have approached this court with the above appeal and cross objection respectively.

4. Heard the learned standing counsel for the appellant/insurance company and the learned counsel for the claimants/cross objectors.

5. The learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company mainly challenged the fixation of monthly income of the deceased in this case. The learned standing counsel further submitted that the deceased was aged 20 years at the time of accident and though an amount of ₹20,000/- was claimed as the notional monthly income of the deceased, the tribunal had taken an amount of ₹15,000/- as the income, even without any evidence. It is submitted that even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236], the monthly income of an ordinary person is taken at ₹10,000/-.

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants/cross objectors submitted that in the F.I.S., it is specifically recorded that the deceased was engaged in milking cows for his livelihood. Taking note of the said occupation, the tribunal fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased at ₹15,000/- per month. Considering the aforesaid facts, the age of the deceased, who was 20 years at the time of the accident, and the fact that he was engaged in milking cows for his livelihood, I find that the income fixed by the tribunal is just and reasonable. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same.

6. Though the learned counsels on both sides challenged the compensation paid under other heads, on a perusal of the records available, I am not inclined to interfere with the compensation awarded by the tribunal under other heads since it appears to be just and reasonable.

Accordingly, both the appeal and the cross objection are dismissed.