IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the notional income of a deceased contractor should reflect his actual earnings, leading to an enhanced compensation amount based on loss of dependency.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioners in O.P.(M.V.) No.716/ 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Punalur are the appellant in M.A.C.A.No. 803 of 2019. The 3^rd respondent is the above O.P. is the appellant in M.A.C.A.No. 588 of 2018. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal). Petitioners are the wife, mother, minor child and brother of the deceased Rasheed.

2. The O.P. was filed under under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the legal representatives of the deceased Rasheed, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 06.07.2012. According to the petitioners, on 06.07.2012, at about 7.30 p.m, the deceased was travelling in his Scropio car along the Dindigul- Madurai Public road from north to south. When he reached near Arogya Milk, compnay, a container lorry bearing Reg.No. HR-38Q/5953 driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner took a U turn without giving any signal and as a result of which, the car happened to hit on the rear side of the lorry. In the accident, he sustained serious injuries and later on he succumbed to the injuries, on 06.07.2012, while under treatment.

3. The 1^st respondent is the owner, the 2^nd respondent is the driver and 3^rd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. According to the petitioners, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. was Rs.50,00,000/-.

4. The insurance company filed a written statement, admitting the accident as well as policy, but disputing the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.

5. The evidence in the case consists of the documentary evidence of Exts.A1 to A13 marked on the side of the petitioners. No evidence was adduced by the respondents.

6. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.15,36,500/-.

7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners preferred this appeal.

8. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following:

Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.

9. Heard Sri.S.Muhammed Haneef, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners/appellants, and Smt.K.S. Santhi, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is regarding the notional income of the deceased as fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.7000/- According to the petitioners, the deceased was working as B class Government Contractor, earning Rs. 20,000/- per month.

11. In the impugned award the tribunal also found that the deceased was a B Class contractor under the Government of Kerala. In order to prove the same, the petitioners produced Ext.A7 certificate issued by the Superintending Engineer, PWD Roads and Bridges South Circle, Thiruvananthapuram. In the light of the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236], the notional income of a coolie during the year 2012 will come to Rs.8500/-. Therefore considering the fact that the deceased was a B class contractor under the Government of Kerala, his notional income is fixed at 10,000/-.

Out of the four petitioners, one is the brother of the deceased aged 35 years. Therefore, petitioners 1, 3 and 4 (mother, wife and child) can be treated as his dependents.

12. On the date of accident, the deceased was aged 35 years. Therefore, 40% of the monthly income is liable to be added towards future prospects, as held in the decision in National Insurance Co.Ltd v Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] and the multiplier to be applied is 16, as held in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. Since the deceased was married and he left behi