JUDGMENT

The petitioners in O.P.(MV) No.2032/2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam are the appellants herein. They are the parents and sister of the deceased Pramod who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 30.06.2011.

2. According to the petitioners, on 30.06.2011 at about 02.00 pm, while the deceased was sitting on his motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL-02 V-8023, which was parked by the road margin, a car bearing Registration No.KL-4V-5068 driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit the deceased. As a result of which, he was thrown away and he sustained grievous injuries and he succumbed to the injuries on 01.07.2011.

3. According to the petitioners, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by the 2^nd respondent. The 1^st respondent is the RC owner and 3^rd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Therefore, they filed the OP claiming a compensation of Rs.9,00,000/-.

4. Respondents in the written statement admitted the accident as well as valid insurance policy but disputed the negligence on the part of the 2^nd respondent. The evidence in the case consists of documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A12. No evidence was adduced by the respondents.

5. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,52,115/-.

6. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant preferred this appeal.

7. Now the points that arise for consideration are the following:

(1) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

(2) Whether the notional income of a victim of road traffic accident can be fixed over and above what is claimed in the Original Petition ?

8. Heard Sri.Thyparambil Thomas Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Sri.S.M.Prasanth, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent and Sri.P.K.Manojkumar, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

9. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is regarding the notional income of the deceased fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.5,000/-. According to the learned counsel, as per the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance [(2011) 13 SCC 236], notional income of a coolie during the year 2011 would come to Rs.8,000/-. Therefore, he prayed for fixing the notional income of the deceased at least at Rs.8,000/-.

10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent would argue that the monthly income of the deceased cannot be fixed over and above what is claimed in the claim petition. He also submitted that in this case, the petitioners have produced Ext.A9, a salary certificate of the deceased. However, it is to be noted that the petitioners have not examined any witnesses to prove Ext.A9. He has also relied upon the decisions in Sakharam v. Karan Development Service Pvt. Ltd [2023 KHC OnLine 7245], Chaus Taushif Alimiya Etc. v. Memon Mahmmad Umar Anwarbhai and Ors. [AIR 2023 SCC 1110], Mammutty v. Prabhakaran [2024 KHC OnLine 1113], Ansar v. Sunilkumar I.B. [2023 KHC OnLine 9451], Vinod v. Sabu Paily [2024 KHC OnLine 1121] and Ratheesh v. National Insurance Company [MACA No.3014 of 2015], in support of his argument.

11. In the decision in Chaus Taushif Alimiya (supra), the accident occurred on 22.08.2012, and the victim claimed a monthly income of Rs.3,000/-. It was accepted as such by the Tribunal as well as the High Court and the prayer for enhancement of the income was declined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

12. In Sakharam (supra), in an accident that occurred on 25.6.2008 a truck driver claimed that he was earning around Rs.3500/- per month. However, both the Tribunal as well as the High Court have reckoned the income at Rs.3000/- per month. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the claim as put forth by the appellant at Rs.3500/- per month is required to be accepted. The question whether the