In determining compensation for a motor accident claim, courts may adjust income estimations and apply relevant legal precedents to arrive at just and reasonable compensation amounts.

J U D G M E N T Dated this the 26^th day of March, 2025 The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No. 1089/ 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kollam, is the appellant herein. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal)

2. The O.P. was filed under under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , by the sister of the deceased Ambika, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 07.07.2012. According to her, on 07.07.2012, at about 8.10 a.m., while the deceased was travelling in an autorickshaw, a car bearing Reg.No. KL-16/H 6777 driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the autorickshaw and as a result of the accident he sustained serious injuries and later on he succumbed to the injuries, on the same day.

3. The 1^st respondent is the owner, the 2^nd respondent is the driver and 3^rd respondent is the insurer of the car and respondents 4 to 6 are the owner, driver and insurer of the autorickshaw. According to the petitioners, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the drivers of the offending vehicles. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. was Rs.7,50,000/-.

4. The insurance companies filed written statements, admitting the accident as well as policy, but disputing the negligence on the part of the respective drivers of the offending vehicles.

5. The evidence in the case consists of the documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A7. No evidence was adduced by the respondents.

6. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal found negligence on the part of the driver of the car, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 3,13,000/- and directed the insurer of the car to pay the same. 7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner preferred this appeal.

8. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following:

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

9. Heard Sri. Siju Kamalasanan, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners/appellants, and Sri.T.V Ajaykumar, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is regarding the income of the deceased as fixed by the Tribunal. According to him, the deceased was working as home- maid, earning Rs. 9,000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed her monthly income at Rs.5,000/-.The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable.

11. As per the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236] , the notional income of a coolie, during the year 2012 will come to Rs.8,500/-. Since the petitioners could not prove the job or income of the deceased, as claimed in the OP, in the light of the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court inRamachandrappa (supra), his notional income is liable to be fixed as that of a coolie, at Rs.8500/-.

12. On the date of accident, the deceased was aged 55 years.

Therefore, 10% of the monthly income is liable to be added towards future prospects, as held in the decision inNational Insurance Co.Ltd v Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] and the multiplier to be applied is 11, as held in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation , (2009) 6 SCC 121. Since the deceased was a bachelor who left behind one sister as dependent, towards personal and living expense, 1/2 of the income is liable to be deducted, as held inSarla Verma (supra). In the above circumstances, the loss of dependency will come to Rs.6,17,100/-.

13. The Tribunal has awarde