The court establishes that the notional income for determining compensation can be influenced by the educational background of the deceased, adjusting compensation for loss of dependency and consortium accordingly.

JUDGMENT :

C.S. SUDHA, J.

These appeals have been filed under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (the Act) by the claim petitioners in O.P.(MV) Nos.793 & 794 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the common Award dated 17/01/2020. The respondents in both the appeals are respondents 1 to 3 respectively in the petitions. In these appeals, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petitions.

2. In both the claim petitions, the claim petitioners are the parents and siblings of the deceased persons. According to the claim petitioners, on 08/08/2017, at about 09:15 a.m. while the deceased in O.P.(MV) No.794/2017 was riding motorcycle bearing registration no.KL-71/C-8910 with the deceased in O.P(MV) No.793/2017, his friend, as pillion rider from Kodiyankunnu to MES Kalladi College, Mannarkkad and when they reached in front of Venga health centre bus bearing registration no.KL-50/C-4362 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked them down, as a result of which they sustained grievous injuries to which they succumbed. A sum of Rs.20,00,000/- was claimed by the claim petitioners in O.P.(MV) No.793/2017 and a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- by the claim petitioners in O.P(MV) No.794/2017 as compensation under various heads.

3. The first respondent/driver and the second respondent/owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte in both the petitions.

4. The third respondent/insurer ; the additional 4^th respondent/the owner of the motorbike ridden by the deceased ; the additional 5^th respondent, the legal heir of the rider of the motor bike and additional 6^th respondent/insurer of the motorcycle filed written statement. It was contended that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the rider of the bike. The 3^rd respondent/insurer admitted the policy.

5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A15 were marked on the side of the claim petitioners. RW1 was examined and Exts.B1 to B1(b) were adduced by the respondents.

6. The Tribunal on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the first respondent/driver of the offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of Rs.7,34,000/- in OP(MV) No.793/2017 and Rs.1,84,500/- in OP(MV) No.794/2017 together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the claim petitioners have come up in appeal.

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

8. Heard both sides.

MACA No.292/2020

Notional income

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioners that the deceased a 19 year old, was studying for B.Sc Chemistry in MES Kalladi College, Mannarkkad. The deceased was a promising student. The notional income fixed by the Tribunal as Rs.6,000/- per month is quite low even going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Co. Ltd , (2011) 13 SCC 236 and hence needs to be appropriately enhanced.

8.1. The fact that the deceased was a B.Sc student is not seen disputed. In the light of the dictum in Ramachandrappa (Supra) and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the notional income can be fixed at Rs.12,000/- per month.

Loss of consortium

9. Admittedly, the claim petitioners are the parents and siblings of the deceased. Going by the dic