The court established that the notional income for compensation should be based on established legal precedents, and future prospects must be considered in calculating dependency loss.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioners in O.P.(M.V.) No.372/2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, are the appellants herein. (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 wife and daughter of the deceased by name Devasia, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 05.10.2011. According to them, on 05.10.2011, at about 6 p.m., while the deceased was riding a scooter, a bus bearing reg.no.KL 36/670 driven by Respondent No.2 in a rash and negligent manner, hit him down and as a result of which he sustained serious injuries and he succumbed to the injuries, on the same day.

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.15,56,000/- limited to Rs.15,00,000/-.

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 Exts.A1 to A5 and B1.

6. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal found negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,46,000/- and directed the insurer to pay the same.

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.P.M.Joshi, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners/appellants, and Sri.V.P.K. Panicker, 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 income of the deceased as fixed by the Tribunal. According to him, the deceased was working as Auto consultant, earning Rs.15000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.5000/-.The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable.

11. 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 2011 will come to Rs.8000/-. Though, it was claimed that the petitioner was an autoconsultant and getting a monthly income Rs.15000/-, there is absolutely no evidence to prove the same. Therefore, as per the dictum laid down in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa (supra), the notional income of the petitioner is liable to be fixed as that of a coolie, at Rs.8000/-.

12. On the date of accident, the deceased was aged 59 years. Therefore, 10% 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 9, as held in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation , (2009) 6 SCC 121 . Since the deceased was married who left behind 2 dependents, towards personal and living expense, 1/3 of the income is liable to be deducted, as held in Sarla Verma (supra). In the above circumstances, the loss of dependency will come to Rs.6,33,600/-.

13. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.25000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.75000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.10000/- towards love and affection. In the light of the decision in Pranay Sethi (supra), the appellants are entitled to get a consolidated sum of Rs.15,000/- towards lo