The court upholds the principle that the Tribunal has the authority to determine notional income based on market realities, ensuring compensations reflect just compensation principles and negligence findings.

JUDGMENT :

C.S. SUDHA, J.

The aforesaid appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (the Act) by the 3^rd respondent/insurer in O.P.(MV) No.472/2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 12/07/2019. The respondent herein is the claimant in the petition. In this appeal, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition.

2. According to the claimant, on 22/08/2015 at 08:30 p.m., while deceased Ratheesh was riding motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL-020K-7479 from west to east through Paravoor-Paripally road and when he reached LP School Koonayil, a Tavera car bearing registration No.KL-01-AF-6066 coming from the opposite side driven by the 2^nd respondent in negligent manner knocked him down causing grievous injuries, to which he succumbed. The deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained. The incident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 2^nd respondent-driver of the car. Hence, the claimant/petitioner claimed a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- as compensation under various heads.

3. The first respondent, the owner of the offending car and the second respondent-driver remained ex parte.

4. The 3^rd respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the existence of a valid policy in respect of the offending vehicle. There was no negligence on the part of the second respondent. There is violation of the policy condition and hence the insurer has no liability. It was also contended that the compensation claimed was quite excessive.

5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A7 were marked on the side of the claimant/petitioner. No documentary evidence was produced by the respondents.

6. The Tribunal on a consideration of the documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the 2^nd respondent-driver of the offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of Rs. 22,25,500/- together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the 3^rd respondent/insurer has come up in appeal.

7. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court.

8. Heard both sides

9. According to the claimant, the deceased, her son, a mason, was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month at the time of the incident. No evidence was produced before the Tribunal to prove that the deceased was a mason. However, Ext.A7 inquest report indicated that the victim was a mason. Therefore, the Tribunal relying on Ext.A7 concluded that the deceased was a mason and fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- (@ Rs. 750/- per day x 20 days). This is challenged by the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer who submitted that even going by the minimum wages fixed by the Government as per G.O.(P) No.154/2011/LBR dated 12.09.2011, the daily wages of a semi-skilled worker was only Rs. 330/- and therefore fixing the wages at Rs. 750/- is on the higher side. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the claimant that the rate of Rs. 750/- fixed by the Tribunal is quite reasonable and therefore no interference is called for. It is also submitted referring to the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Allian. Co. Ltd , (2011) 13 SCC 236 , that the Tribunal has every authority to fix an appropriate amount as the notional income. In the process of fixation, certain amount of guess