The court redefined the basis for compensation by increasing the deceased's notional income, highlighting the judicial balancing needed for fair award calculations in wrongful death claims.

JUDGMENT :

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J.

[MACA Nos. 843/2018, C.O. 104/2024]

1. This appeal is filed by the 3rd respondent insurance company in O.P.(MV) No.67 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. The respondents herein are the claimants before the Tribunal. The cross objection No.104 of 2024 is filed by the cross objectors/claimants.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

On 21.11.2011, at 8.45 p.m., while the deceased was walking through the side of the road, an innova car bearing registration No.KL-01-AN-9441 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit the deceased and as a result, the deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The claimants approached the Tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹ 14,33,000/-.

3. Though notice was served on the respondents, the first and second respondents, the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle respectively, remained absent and were set ex parte before the Tribunal. The third respondent - insurer filed a written statement admitting the insurance policy, disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Exts.A1 to A15 and Ext.B1 were marked before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, found that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the second respondent and awarded a sum of ₹ 15,43,800/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded, the 3^rd respondent - insurance company has come up in appeal and dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation award, the claimants/cross objectors have filed cross objection.

4. Heard the learned standing counsel for the appellant/insurance company and the learned counsel for the cross objectors/claimants.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company as well as the the learned counsel for the cross objectors/claimants mainly challenged the quantum of compensation under the following heads:

I. Notional income : The learned counsel for the cross-objectors/claimants submitted that the deceased was an ex-Gulf returnee and was engaged in the vehicle business at the relevant time of accident. However, the Tribunal had fixed the income as ₹ 8,000/-. Even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. 2011 (13) SCC 236, the income of a coolie for an accident which occurred in 2011, is fixed at ₹ 8,000/-. However, the Tribunal while passing the award has considered Ext.A14 original driving licence which was issued by the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Ministry of Qatar, as well as the licence issued by the Indian Government and accordingly, fixed the income of the deceased. The learned counsel for the cross objectors/claimants submitted that the deceased was not a coolie but he was a businessman by profession. Considering the facts of this case, in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, I find it appropriate to re-fix the monthly income at 10,000/-.

II. Loss of dependency The learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal had added 30% future prospects towards the monthly income. Since the deceased was aged 49 years at the time of accident and was self employed, following the judgment in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC), 25% of the future prospects is to be added towards the monthly income now fixed and the income would be ₹ 12,500/- (10,000 x 25% + 10,000) for awarding compensation under the head, loss of dependency. Since there are six legal heirs for the deceased, the deduction towards