IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the notional income of a deceased coolie is Rs.7000/month, with future prospects considered, leading to enhanced compensation for dependents in a motor vehicle accident case.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioners in O.P.(M.V.) No.442/2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor are the appellants herein. The 1^st respondent in O.P. is the appellant in MACA No.2030/2018. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal)

2. The O.P. was filed under under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , by the husband and three children of the deceased by name Molly, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 26.03.2009. According to them, on 26.03.2009, at about 3:20 PM, the Tipper lorry KL-45/7852 driven by the 2^nd respondent along the Angamaly – Chalakkudy N.H road, in a rash and negligent manner, had hit down the motorcycle ridden by the 1^st petitioner with the deceased as pillion rider and as a result of which she sustained serious injuries and later on she succumbed to the injuries, on the same day, while under treatment. The 1^st respondent is the owner and 3^rd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle.

3. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 2^nd respondent, awarded in compensation Rs.9,01,000/- and directed the 3^rd respondent to pay the same. Further, the Tribunal permitted the 3^rd respondent to recover the compensation from respondents 1 and 2 on the ground that at the time of the accident the 2^nd respondent did not have valid driving licence to drive the Tipper Lorry.

4. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners preferred MACA 1442 of 2015, while aggrieved by the award permitting the 3^rd respondent to recover the compensation from the 1^st respondent, he preferred MACA 2030 of 2018.

5. Now the points that arises for consideration are the following:

1) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

2) Whether the award permitting the 3^rd respondent to recover the compensation from the 1^st respondent is liable to be interfered with?

6. Heard Smt.Anupama Johny, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, and Sri.N.S.Najeeb, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

7. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. The learned counsel for the 1^st respondent tried to establish that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle also. However, it is to be noted that in this case the police after investigation filed charge sheet which was marked as Ext.A5, against the 2^nd respondent. As per Ext.A5, the 2^nd respondent was responsible for the above accident and as such it is prima facie evidence of negligence on his part. In the absence of any contra evidence, in the light of Ext.A5, it is to be held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 2^nd respondent.

8. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is regarding the income of the deceased as fixed by the Tribunal. According to him, the deceased was working as a coolie, earning Rs. 7000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.4500/-.The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable.

9. As per the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236], the notional income of a coolie, during the year 2009 will come to Rs.7000/-. Since the petitioners could not prove the job or income of the deceased, as claimed in the OP, in the light of the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa (supra), his notional income is liable to be fixed as that of a coolie, at Rs.7000/-.

10. On the date of accident, the deceased was aged 36 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 15, as