The notional income in compensation claims should reflect the deceased's educational qualifications; loss of consortium must be granted to all eligible family members.

JUDGMENT :

C.S. SUDHA, J.

This appeal under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (the Act) has been filed by the claimants in O.P.(MV) No.148/2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 10.12.2018. The sole respondent herein is the 1^st respondent/owner 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 claimants/petitioners, on 20.10.2012, at about 7.20 p.m, the deceased along with a pillion rider was riding a motorcycle along the Neyyattinkara - Kattakkada public road. When they reached near CSI Church, Thozhukkal, K.S.R.T.C. bus bearing Reg.No.KL-15-5464 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries to which he succumbed. The claimants sought Rs. 15,00,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Lakhs) as compensation.

3. Before the Tribunal, the 2^nd respondent/driver remained ex parte.

4. The 1^st respondent K.S.R.T.C/owner of the bus filed written statement denying the claim and contending that the incident was due to the rash and negligent riding of the deceased.

5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A7 were marked on the side of the claimants/petitioners. No documents were produced by the 1^st respondent. The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of Rs.15,03,000/- with 8% interest per annum from 22.02.2013 till realization. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have come up in appeal.

6. Heard both sides.

7. The award of compensation by the Tribunal under the following heads are challenged:-

Notional Income

The appellants/claimants contended before the Tribunal that the deceased was getting a monthly income of Rs.20,000/-. In order to substantiate the allegation, they relied on Exts.A4 and A5, which are the copies of his Degree Certificate and Certificate relating to Apparel Training & Design Centre respectively. The Tribunal fixed the notional income at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per month. The incident took place in the year 2012. According to the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants, the amount fixed is on the lower side and that even going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Allian.Co.Ltd , (2011) 13 SCC 236 , a coolie was entitled to be granted an amount of Rs.8,500/-. In the present case, the deceased was much more qualified than a coolie and so, the submission is that the notional income ought to have been fixed at the rate claimed, that is, Rs.20,000/- per month. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the 1^strespondent/owner that the notional income fixed by the Tribunal is a reasonable one which does not call for any interference.

Going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa (Supra), the notional income of a coolie worker in the year 2012 was liable to be fixed at Rs.8,500/- per month. That being the position, I find that an amount of Rs.9,000/- per month would be a reasonable amount. Therefore, the impugned award will stand modified to the aforesaid extent.

Loss of Consortium

It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants that though claim petitioners 2 to 4 were also entitled to parental and filial consortium respectively, the same was not granted, which is an infirmity committed by the Tribunal.

8. In the light of the dictums in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram , (2018) 18 SCC 130: 2018 KHC 6697 ; United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur , 2020(3) KHC 760 :