The court ruled that notional income must align with minimum wage standards, and dual compensation for love and affection and loss of consortium is impermissible.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the award passed by the Addl.Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam in OP(MV) No.1344/2018.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:

The claimants are the legal heirs of one Remani, who died in a road traffic accident on 21.4.2018 at 5 pm. While she was crossing Alappuzha-Ernakulam NH Zebra line, a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KL-15/7317 hit on the scooter. Due to the impact of the accident, the deceased fell down and sustained fatal injuries. Though she was taken to Lakeshore Hospital, Nettoor, she succumbed to the injuries on the same day.

3. The claimants contended that the deceased was a cook in a hotel and was earning a sum of Rs.18,000/- per month. In support of their contention, the claimants produced Exts.A1 to A3 documents.

The tribunal, on appreciation of evidence, found that the deceased Remani had to be treated as a skilled worker and, therefore, proceeded to fix her notional income at Rs.13,500/- per month. Since the deceased was survived by three dependants, 1/3^rd of her income was deducted towards personal and living expenses. The tribunal, in addition to the above, granted loss of estate and loss of consortium to the 1^st claimant and also Rs.40,000/- each under the head love and affection to the claimants 2 and 3. Thus, the tribunal awarded the following compensation:

4. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the insurance company has preferred the present appeal by contending that the notional income adopted by the tribunal is without any rationale and against the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. (2011 (13) SCC 236). The insurance company further contended that the tribunal erred egregiously in granting compensation under the head love and affection in addition to the parental consortium granted to the 2^nd and 3^rd claimants.

5. Heard Sri.P.G.Jayashankar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company, and Smt.K.N.Rajani, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants.

6. On consideration of the rival submissions raised across the bar, this Court is of the considered view that the appeal preferred by the insurance company can only be allowed partly. From the facts narrated above, it is evident that the insurance company questions the quantum of compensation basically on two heads; (a) fixation of notional income, and (b) grant of compensation towards love and affection over and above the compensation granted under the head loss of consortium. Although it is contended that claimants 2 and 3 cannot be considered dependents, this Court is of the view that in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Birender and Others [(2020) 11 SCC 356] and this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shalumol [2021 (5) KLT 74], the contention of the insurance company questioning the dependency of claimants 2 and 3 cannot be sustained.

7. As regards the claim that the income fixed by the tribunal is on the higher side, it must be noted by this Court that the accident took place in the year 2018. Therefore, prima facie, this Court is of the view that the income fixed by the tribunal is not proper in terms of the notification issued by the State of Kerala under the provisions of the Minimum Wages