The court upheld that compensation must reflect just and reasonable assessments using established case law for income and losses due to the fatal accident.

JUDGMENT :

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J.

This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants in O.P (MV) No.1038 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala. The respondents herein are the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the appellants/claimants, on 22.05.2009, while the deceased was travelling in a jeep which was driven by the 1^st respondent met with an accident. As a result of the accident, he sustained grave injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The appellants approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs. 10,83,000/-, limited to Rs. 8,00,000/-.

3. The respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy, but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced on either side. Exts.A1 to A8 were marked on the side of the appellants/claimants and no documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the respondents. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of Rs. 4,06,000/-, as compensation under different heads with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the respondent being the insurer and the insurer is granted liberty to recover the compensation amount from respondents 1 and 2. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimants have come up in appeal. Though notice was served on the respondents 1 and 2 they did not appear before this court and contest the matter on merits.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants claims enhancement mainly under the following heads:

Notional income :- The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though an amount of Rs. 7,500/- was claimed as the monthly income of the deceased, the tribunal has taken only on an amount of Rs. 3,500/- as the income. The learned counsel submitted that going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [ (2011) 13 SCC 236 ], the notional monthly income of the deceased ought to have been fixed at Rs. 7,000/- whereas the learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that the income arrived at by the tribunal is just and reasonable. Following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), in order to award a just compensation, I find it is appropriate to refix the monthly income as Rs. 7,000/-. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that no future prospects were added by the tribunal to the income fixed. On a perusal of Ext.A8 passport, it is seen that the deceased was aged 48 years at the time of the accident. Going by the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)], the appellants are entitled to add 25% of the income fixed towards future prospects. Thus, the income would be Rs. 8,750/- for awarding compensation under the head loss of dependency.

Compensation for loss of dependency :- Since the notional income fixed is Rs. 8,750/-, the compensation payable under the said head is recalculated thus: Rs. 9,10,000/- (8,750x12x13x2/3). The tribunal has already awarded an amount of Rs. 3,64,000/- towards the said head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of Rs. 5,46,000/- under the head loss of dependency.

Compensation for loss of consortium/ loss of love and affection :- The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the tribunal has awarded only an amount of Rs. 12,000/- towards loss of consortium. Considering the fact that there are two legal heirs, wife and daughter. Going by the judgment in Pranay Sethi (