Proper computation of compensation must include loss of dependency and future prospects, while recognizing limits on distinct classifications of damages like loss of love and affection.

JUDGMENT :

Shoba Annamma Eapen, J.

This appeal is filed by the legal heirs of the claimant in O.P (MV) No.886 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. The respondent herein was the third respondent before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimants, on 28.10.2014 at about 09.00 am, while the deceased was riding the scooter bearing reg. No. KL-57-G-7271, a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-18-E-3871 ridden by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit on the scooter in which the deceased was riding. As a result of the accident, the deceased had sustained serious injuries and later succumbed to the injuries on the same day. The claimants, being the mother and siblings of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming compensation.

3. The first and second respondents/owner and rider of the offending vehicle respectively, filed a written statement admitting the accident but denying the negligence attributed against the 2^nd respondent and stated that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. It was further contended that the 2^nd respondent was having a valid driving licence and the offending vehicle was insured with the 3^rd respondent. The 3^rd respondent/insurer filed a written statement admitting the validity of the policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. It was further submitted that at the time of accident, the deceased was not wearing a helmet. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A8 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of Rs.12,94,360/- as compensation under different heads with interest @9% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs against the 3^rd respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, have come up in appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and the learned standing counsel for the respondent/insurer.

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

Notional income:- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though an amount of Rs.20,000/- was claimed as the income of the deceased, the tribunal had taken only Rs.5,000/- as notional income, who was an electrician cum plumber by profession. It is further submitted that, 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 in 2014, is fixed as Rs.9,500/- and sought for enhancement of income. In order to award just and reasonable compensation, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), I find it appropriate to refix the income at Rs.9,500/-.

Loss of dependency - Since the monthly income of the deceased is refixed at Rs.9,500/-, compensation towards loss of dependency has to be recalculated. The deceased was 21 years old at the time of the accident and as per the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662(SC)], 40% future prospects can be added to the income now fixed. Thus, after adding 40% of the notional income towards future prospects, the amount would be arrived at Rs.13,300/- (9,500 + 3,800) for calculating dependency. Accordingly, following the judgments in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], the appellants will be entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.14,36,400/- (13,300 x 12 x 18 x 1/2) towards loss of dependency. Since the tribunal has awarded an