The court established that compensation should be re-evaluated based on notional income and clarified that overlapping compensation claims are impermissible, reinforcing legal precedents for fair compensation.

JUDGMENT :

Shoba Annamma Eapen, J.

This appeal has been filed by the claimants in OP(MV) No.653 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punalur. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. The case of the appellants/claimants is that on 02.10.2011, while the deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL- 24A/8359 along the Oyoor - Ayoor public road, a pick up van bearing Reg.No.KL-02P/5131 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the motorcycle ridden by him, whereby he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The claimants, being the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.

3. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte before the tribunal. The respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A8 were marked on the side of the appellant/claimant. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of Rs.11,37,635/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 8% per annum, against the third respondent being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer.

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

5.1. Notional income - The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was a quarry manager and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, however, the tribunal has fixed the notional monthly income only at Rs.5,000/-. Admittedly, no document was produced by the appellant to prove income. However, as per the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [ (2011) 13 SCC 236 ], the notional monthly income of the appellant ought to have been fixed at Rs.8,000/-. Accordingly, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), I deem it appropriate to refix the notional monthly income of the appellant at Rs.8,000/-.

5.2. Loss of dependency - Since the monthly income of the deceased is refixed at Rs.8,000/-, compensation towards loss of dependency has to be recalculated. The deceased was 39 years old at the time of the accident. Thus, after adding 40% of the notional income towards future prospects, the amount would be arrived at Rs.11,200/- (8000 + 3200). Accordingly, following the judgments in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662(SC)] and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [ 2010(2) KLT 802 (SC)], the appellants will be entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.15,12,000/- (11200 x 12 x 15 x 3/4) towards loss of dependency. Hence, there will be an additional amount of Rs.6,93,000/- under this head.

5.3. Loss of consortium/loss of love & affection - On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/- each under the heads, loss of consortium and loss of love & affection, totalling to an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. However, the tribunal was wrong in awarding compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection, which is impermissible and runs against the mandate in Pranay Sethi (supra). Once compensation is awarded under the head of loss of consortium, no amount shall be awarded towards loss of love and affection as it amounts to duplication of compensation as held in New