The court established that notional income for compensation must reflect fair wages, irrespective of actual earnings, ensuring just compensation for the injured party.

J U D G M E N T

The appellant was the petitioner in OP(MV)

No.1072 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha.

2. According to the appellant on 09-04- 2007 at about 7.30 p.m., while he was pulling a concrete mixing machine along Kollam - Alappuzha road near Purakkad Church, car bearing registration No.KL 08/AK-9612 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner caused to hit him and thereby, he sustained serious injuries. The first respondent is also the owner of the offending vehicle and respondent No.2 is the insurer.

3. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A7 and Ext.X1 were marked from the side of the petitioner and no evidence was adduced from the side of the respondents.

4. After trial and hearing both sides, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the first respondent and awarded a total compensation of Rs.7,65,900/- to the petitioner.

5. The appellant is challenging the quantum of compensation determined by the Tribunal under various heads on the ground that the same is inadequate.

6. Heard Sri.K.T.Saju, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.N.S,Najeeb, the learned counsel for the second respondent.

7. According to the appellant he was aged 32 years at the time of the accident and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. The Tribunal fixed notional income of Rs.4,000/- per month.

8. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court inRamachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd. [ (2011) 13 SCC 236 ] and Syed Sadiq and Others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company [ (2014) 2 SCC 735 = 2014 KHC 4027] shows that even in the absence of any evidence, the monthly income of an ordinary worker has to be fixed as Rs.4,500/- in respect of the accident occurred in the year 2004 and for the subsequent years, the monthly income could be reckoned by adding Rs.500/- each per year.

9. In this case, the accident occurred in the year 2007. Therefore, if the monthly income of the appellant is calculated by adopting the above principle, it will come to Rs.6,000/-.

10. The learned counsel for the second respondent argued that the appellant claimed only Rs.4,000/- as his monthly income in the claim petition and therefore, it is not just and fair to fix a higher amount as notional income based on the decision in Ramachandrappa (supra).

11. The learned counsel for the appellant cited the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court inMeena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto and others [ 2022 KHC 7080 ] and Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh [ 2003 KHC 15 ] to point out that the grant of just and fair compensation is a statutory responsibility of the court, and even if a less amount is claimed in the claim petition, the same would not be an impediment to award just compensation in excess of the amount claimed.

12. It cannot be disputed that even a casual worker is entitled for fair wages and the notional income of an ordinary worker has to be fixed after considering the fair wages at the relevant time and only because the appellant was earning less than the fair wages at the time of occurrence, he cannot be denied parity in the matter of notional income, as it is well settled that beneficial legislations with social objective are expected to be interpreted in favour of those for whose benefit the said legislations are made. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the appellant is entitled for the benefit of the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa and Syed Sadiq (supra) regarding fixation of notional income and that the contention of the 2nd respondent in this regard is not legally sustainable.

13. The decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [ (2017) 16 SCC 680 ] and Jagdish v. Mohan [ (2018) 4 SCC 571 ] shows that an addition of 40% of the established income can be made towards future prospects where the victim was below 40 years and that t