The judgment establishes that income assessment must consider proven professional skills, and contributory negligence cannot be attributed without independent evidence. Furthermore, non-pecuniary compensation for loss of love and affection is disallowed if loss of consortium is already awarded, avoiding inflationary duplication of damages.

JUDGMENT :

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the legal heirs of the claimant in O.P (MV) No.688 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimants, on 21.04.2017 at about 06.00 pm, while the deceased was riding a scooter bearing reg. No. KL-41/J-7156, a tipper lorry bearing registration No.KL-63-A-284 driven by the 2^nd respondent in front of the scooter had applied sudden brake in a rash and negligent manner and thereby the scooter hit behind the lorry. 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 legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- limited to Rs. 50,00,000/-.

3. The 1^st respondent/owner and the 2^nd respondent/driver of the offending vehicle remained ex parte before the tribunal. The 3^rd respondent/insurer filed a written statement admitting the validity of the policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed and denying negligence. It was also contended that the deceased had no head gear and was riding the scooter in a careless manner. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A9 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of Rs. 18,59,490/- (97% of Rs. 19,17,000/-) as compensation under different heads with interest @ 8% 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 appellants/claimants and the learned standing counsel for the 3^rd respondent/insurer.

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

Notional income :- The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that though an amount of Rs. 35,000/- was claimed as the income of the deceased who was a welder by profession, the tribunal had taken only an amount of Rs. 9,000/-. It is further submitted that the First Information Statement also indicates that the deceased was a welder and sought for enhancement of the income fixed. It is further submitted that, 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 in 2017, is fixed as Rs. 11,000/-and sought for enhancement of income.

On the other hand the learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that neither any evidence nor documents has been produced to prove that he was a welder.

The First Information Statement is the first version given by the informant, wherein it is specifically stated that the deceased was a welder by profession. I find no reason to disbelieve the said assertion regarding the avocation of the deceased. Therefore, considering the fact that the deceased was a welder, in order to award just and reasonable compensation, I find it appropriate to refix the income at Rs. 13,000/-.

Compensation for loss of dependency :- Since the deceased was aged 39 years at the time of accident, going by the judgment in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi,  2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC), 40% future prospects is to be added towards the monthly inco