The court emphasized just compensation principles in accident claims, modifying awards based on notional income and established precedents to ensure fairness to the claimants.

JUDGMENT :

C.S. SUDHA, J.

1. 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.1098/2013 and 1100/2013 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Alappuzha (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by common Award dated 05/08/2019. The respondents herein are the respondents in the petitions. In these appeals, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petitions.

2. According to the claim petitioners, on 01/04/2013 at 06:15 p.m., while they were travelling in tempo traveller bearing registration no.KL-36/3223 driven by the second respondent through Kattappana – Thodupuzha road and when they reached near Cheruthoni bridge, the vehicle after knocking down three pedestrians fell down from the bridge in to the river, as a result of which they sustained grievous injuries.

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

4. The third respondent-insurer filed written statement admitting the policy but denying liability. It was contended that the driver had no valid license at the time of the accident.

5. OP(MV) Nos.1097/2013, 1098/2013, 1099/2013, 1100/2013 and 1101/2013 were jointly tried. Before the Tribunal, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exts.A1 to A46 were marked on the side of the claim petitioners. No oral or documentary evidence was 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 second respondent-driver of the offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹1,32,700/- in OP(MV) No.1098/2013 and ₹91,950/- in OP(MV)No.1100/2013 together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of 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.

M.A.C.A No.749 of 2020

9. The award of compensation by the Tribunal under the following heads is challenged by the claim petitioner.

Notional income.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that the latter, a 55 year old driver was earning ₹7,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal fixed the notional income at ₹5,000/-, which is quite low going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent-insurer that no documents have been produced to substantiate the claim and therefore the amount that has been fixed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable calling for no interference by this Court. The fact that the claim petitioner is a driver is not seen disputed. The claim is for ₹7,000/- only. Therefore, the learned counsel for the third respondent-insurer objects to the fixing of the notional income going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa (Supra), as per which the income of a coolie in the year 2013 is liable to be fixed at ₹9,000/-.

9.1. It is true that it is only an amount of ₹7,000/- that is claimed in the petition. But it is just compensation that needs to be awarded. The fact that the claim petitioner is a driver is not disputed. Going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa (Supra), the income of even a coolie in the year 2013 is liable to be fixed at ₹9,000/-. Therefore, the claim petitioner being a driver, I find that