The court established that the notional income of a deceased autorickshaw driver should be based on minimum wage standards, with compensation for pain, suffering, and consortium being uniformly applicable to all legal heirs.

JUDGMENT :

These appeals are filed by the 2^nd respondent insurance company and the claim petitioners challenging the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal as per award dated 25.09.2019 in O.P.(MV) No. 941 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta.

2. The claim petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased Pankajakshan, who died in a motor vehicle accident. According to the petitioners, on 28.05.2017 while the deceased was driving an autorickshaw, car driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner caused to hit the autorickshaw and thereby, the deceased sustained serious injuries and subsequently succumbed to his injuries, while undergoing treatment in the hospital. The 1^st respondent is also the owner of the offending vehicle and the 2^nd respondent is the insurer.

3. Before the Tribunal, Exhibits A1 to A10 were marked from the side of the petitioners and no evidence adduced from the side of the respondents. The Tribunal arrived at a finding that the accident occurred because of the negligence on the part of the 1^st respondent and that respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.9,02,030/- to the petitioners.

4. Heard Sri. Tapas Varma A., the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company and Sri. T.K. Koshy, the learned counsel for the appellant claim petitioners.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants/claim petitioners argued that the deceased was aged 65 years and he was driving his own autorickshaw at the time of accident and for the reason that no document is produced to prove the income of the deceased, the Tribunal fixed only a notional income of Rs.13,000/- and the same is on the lower side. It is argued that the occupation of the deceased as an autorickshaw driver is not seriously disputed and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have accepted the minimum wages of a skilled worker for fixing the income of the deceased. In this connection, the learned counsel for the appellants cited the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Manusha Sreekumar and Others v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., [ 2022 KHC 7106 ], wherein it was held as follows in paragraph 20:

“20. Schedule B - Category III of the Kerala Fair Wages Act classifies a driver as a “Skilled worker”. Reading this in conjunction with the Notification that came into effect from 01/01/2015 which amended Schedule A of the Kerala Fair Wages Act , prescribing a minimum pay scale of the workers listed in Schedule B, it is apparent that a 'driver' in Kerala earned a minimum of Rs. 15,600/- in 2015. It appears to us that the aforesaid Act and the notification issued thereunder were not brought to the notice of the Tribunal or the High Court. As a result thereto, the High Court could not be cognizant of the statutory mandate prescribing minimum wages for a skilled worker like 'driver', and thus, erred in fixing the income of the Deceased at Rs.10,000/-. We are therefore inclined to fix the income of the Deceased notionally at Rs. 15,600/- per month.”

In view of the minimum wages of a skilled worker in Kerala, I find that the monthly notional income of the deceased can be fixed at Rs.15,600/- for the purpose of calculating the compensation.

6. The Tribunal accepted 7 as the multiplier applicable and deducted one-third of the income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased by following the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)] and the same is not under challenge. Thus, while re assessing the compensation for loss of dependency as per the revised criteria, the amount would c