IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS ST TUESDAY, THE 21 DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946 MACA NO. 926 OF 2014 AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 07.05.2013 IN OP(MV) NO.860 OF 2012 OF PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

1 NIMJU M., AGED 22 YEARS, W/O. LATE SATHYAN, VASU BHAVAN, MATTUPURATH, POST FEROKE, KOZHIKODE.

2 PRASANNA, AGED 52 YEARS, W/O. ASOKAN, VAZHAYUR, POST AZHINHILAM, MALAPPURAM.

BY ADVS.

SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

1 T.P.VEERAN, S/O. MUHAMMED, THALEKKARA PANDAYIL HOUSE, UNNIYATHIPARAMBA, VALIYAPARAMBA POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673637.

2 ASHRAF, S/O. BEERAN, VALAYAMKOTTIL HOUSE, PULPATTA POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676126.

3 ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., M SONS ARCADE, 4TH FLOOR, CHEROOTTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673001.

R3 BY ADV.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.), STANDING COUNSEL R3 BY ADV.P.JACOB MATHEW, STANDING COUNSEL THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

This appeal is filed by the claimants in OP(MV)No.860 of

2012 on the file of Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, impugning the award on the ground of inadequacy of compensation.

2. Sri.Sathyan, the husband of the 1st appellant and son of the 2nd appellant, met with a road traffic accident on 25.02.2012, at 9.30 a.m., while he was riding a motorcycle through Bypass road near Bhavana bus stop. He was knocked down by KL-10/AH-5343 lorry, driven by the 2nd respondent, in a rash and negligent manner. He sustained serious injuries and died on the same day, due to the gravity of the injuries suffered by him. He was a 28 year old coolie, earning monthly income of Rs.12,000/-. His legal heirs approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-, but the Tribunal awarded only Rs.6,37,000/-, and hence this appeal.

3. The 1st respondent was the owner of the offending vehicle, 2nd respondent was its driver and the 3rd respondent was its Insurer. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte . The

3rd respondent-Insurer entered appearance through counsel and admitted the Policy.

4. Now this Court is called upon to answer whether there is any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned award warranting interference by this Court.

5. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the 3rd respondent-Insurer.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that though the deceased was a coolie earning monthly income of Rs.12,000/-, the Tribunal fixed his notional income @ Rs.4,500/-. Learned counsel would rely upon the decision Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [AIR 2011 SC 2951] , to contend that in the year 2012, the notional income of a coolie might have been fixed @ Rs.8,500/- . Relying on that decision, this Court is inclined to fix his notional income @ Rs.8,500/- per month. Moreover, since he was aged below 40, he was eligible to get 40% addition towards future prospects. If so, his monthly income could have been fixed as Rs.11,900/- (8,500 + 40%). Since he was having two dependents ⅓ had to be deducted towards his personal expenses. So, the balance would come to Rs.7,933/-. The multiplier applicable is 17 as he was aged only 28. So, compensation for loss of dependency could have been assessed as Rs.16,18,332/- (7,933x12x17). The Tribunal already awarded Rs.6,12,000/- under the head ‘loss of dependency’. After deducting that amount, the appellants are entitled to get Rs.10,06,332/- as enhanced compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’.

7. Towards funeral expenses, learned Tribunal awarded only Rs.8,000/-. As per the decision National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, [(2017) 16 SCC 680] , the appellants are entitled to get Rs.15,000/-. So, they are entitled to get the balance amount of Rs.7,000/-

under the head ‘funeral expenses’.

8. Towards loss of consortium, l