JUDGMENT :

The appellant is the petitioner in O.P.(MV).No.395/2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha. The said claim petition was submitted by the appellants seeking compensation for the death of one Thomas @ Thankachan due to the injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 10.01.2009. The 1st appellant is the wife, the 2nd and 3rd appellants are the children, and the 4th and 5th appellants are the parents of the deceased.

2. The accident occurred when the autorickshaw in which the deceased was travelling along with his wife and son through the Alapuzha National Highway, a Scorpio vehicle bearing registration No.KL-4/X 6575 hit the said autorickshaw. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he was taken to Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha and thereafter taken to Medical Centre, Ernakulam. While undergoing treatment, he passed away on 18.01.2009. The deceased was aged 40 years at the time of the accident and was working as a Mason. The 1st respondent was the driver, the 2nd respondent was the owner, and the 3rd respondent was the insurer of the Scorpio car. The monthly income claimed was Rs.6,000/-. The claim petition was submitted in such circumstances seeking a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

3. The 1st and 2nd respondents did not contest the matter. The 3rd respondent filed a written statement admitting the coverage of the insurance policy over this Scorpio car. However, they disputed the liability on various grounds. The negligence and quantum of compensation claimed were also disputed.

4. The evidence in this case consists of Ext.A1 to A10 from the appellants' side, and the respondents adduced no evidence. After the trial, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the car and being the insurer of the said vehicle, the 3 rd respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.9,88,700/-and the 3rd respondent was directed to deposit the said amount along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization. This appeal is submitted in such circumstances seeking enhancement of compensation.

5. Heard Sri.P.Joe Paul, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri.P.Jacob Mathew, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent/Insurance company.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the amounts awarded under various heads are grossly inadequate and do not represent the “just compensation”. The main contest is in relation to the monthly income fixed. It was pointed out that, even though a monthly income of Rs.6,000/-was claimed, the Tribunal took only Rs.4,500/-which is on the lower side. After considering the materials placed on record, I am of the view that the monthly income taken by the Tribunal is not proper. In Ramachandrappav. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236], the honourable Supreme Court was pleased to take the monthly income of an ordinary worker without any evidence as Rs.4,500/-in the year 2004. Therefore, as the accident in this case occurred in the year 2009, I am of the view that, Rs.6,000/-claimed by the appellants as the monthly income, is reasonable and the same can be accepted.

7. The next aspect is the addition to be made towards future prospects. The Tribunal did not make any addition towards the same. It is discernible from the records that the deceased was aged 39 years and 8 months at the time of the accident. Therefore, he would come within the category of persons below 40 years, and hence, the addition to be made in the light of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi[2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)], is 40%. While reassessing the compensation with the above revised criteria, the compensation for loss of dependency would come to Rs.11,34,000/-[(6000+40%)x12x15x3/4]. The amount already awarded by the Tribunal under this head is Rs.6,12,000/