The court established that the notional income for compensation purposes should be Rs.9000/- based on established legal precedents, and clarified the criteria for determining dependents and loss of consortium.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioners in O.P.(M.V.) No.1010/2013 on the file of the II Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palakkad, 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 major children of the deceased by name Mary Paulose, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 20.08.2013. According to them, on 20.08.2013, at about 11.30 p.m., while the deceased was riding pillion on a motorcycle ridden by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, she was thrown on the road, sustained serious injuries and later on she succumbed to the injuries, on 21.08.2013, while under treatment.

3. The 1^st respondent is the rider cum owner and the 2^nd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. According to the petitioners, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the offending vehicle. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. was Rs.5,00,000/-.

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 A9. No evidence was adduced by the respondents.

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.3,44,000/- 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.Baby Mathew, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners/appellants, and Sri.S.K.Ajay Kumar, 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. As per the claim petition, the deceased was working as an agricultural worker, earning Rs.6000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed her monthly income at Rs.4500/-.

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 2013 will come to Rs.9000/-. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for fixing the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.9000/-. The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable. Since the notional income of a coolie, in the year 2013 will come to Rs.9000/-, in order to award just and reasonable compensation, in the light of a 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.9000/-.

12. Since the petitioners are major sons and daughter of the deceased, the Tribunal held that they are not the dependents of the deceased and no compensation was awarded on the head loss of dependency. Instead, the said amount was awarded on the head ‘loss of estate’. For the mere reason that the petitioners are major children of the deceased, it cannot be concluded that they are not dependents of the deceased. Therefore, the above procedure adopted by the Tribunal is not correct.

13. On the date of accident, the deceased was aged 65 years. Therefore, there is no scope for 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 7, as held in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. Since the deceased was marr