The court enhances compensation for death in an accident by rationalizing notional income and adjusting multipliers, emphasizing just compensation principles.

JUDGMENT :

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants in O.P.(MV) No.1320 of 2011 on the files of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thrissur seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The respondents herein are the respondents before the Tribunal.

2. According to the claimants, on 24.04.2011 at about 2.30 pm, when the deceased Prahladhan was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No. KL-48-795 through Koottupatha – Arangottukara public road and when he reached near Irumbakassery, a bus bearing registration No.KL-10-V-1094 driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle. Due to the impact of the hit, Prahladhan sustained severe injuries and succumbed to the injuries on 25.04.2011. The claimants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased Prahladhan approached the Tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹16,00,000/-.

3. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle who were arrayed as 1^st and 2^nd respondents respectively remained ex parte before the tribunal. The 3^rd respondent, insurer, contested the petition and filed a written statement admitting the insurance policy and contended that at the time of the accident, the 1^st respondent did not have a valid driving licence and the 2^nd respondent had violated the policy condition. Further, they disputed the quantum of compensation claimed and the age of the deceased. Exts.A1 to A7 and Ext.B1 policy were marked. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹7,72,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation with proportionate costs against the 3^rd respondent, being the insurer. The tribunal granted the right to recover the amount from respondents 1 and 2. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners have come up with this appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurance company.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants sought enhancement mainly under the following heads:-

I. Notional Income:- The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants claimed an amount of ₹9,000/- as the income of the deceased who was a coolie and the Tribunal took only ₹5,000/- as notional income. The learned counsel further submitted that even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236, the monthly income of coolie ought to have been taken at ₹8,000/-, since the accident is of the year 2011 and sought for enhancement of income fixed. Accordingly, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra) and in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, I find it appropriate to re-fix the notional monthly income at ₹8,000/-. Since the deceased was aged only 24 years at the time of accident, following the apex court judgement in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC), by adding 40% future prospectus to the income fixed, the total income to calculate dependency is ₹11,200/- (8,000/-x40/100=3,200/-+8,000).

II. Loss of dependency:- The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in paragraph 13 and 14 of the award, the Tribunal had found that the deceased was aged 24 years. However, the multiplier was wrongly adopted as ‘17’ instead of ‘18’. I find some force in the argument. On a perusal of the afore paragraphs, it is seen that the age of the dec