JUDGMENT

Dated this the 4th day of July, 2024 This appeal has been filed by the claimants in OP(MV)

No.1179 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. The respondent herein is the second respondent before the Tribunal.

2. According to the appellants, on 19.01.2017, at about

2.30 p.m, while the deceased was travelling in a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-18-R-4812 as a pillion rider from Pooladikunnu to Vengalam N.H.Road, due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle, it hit on the iron bar fixed on the right side of the road and thereafter, the vehicle was capsized. The deceased was thrown out from the motorcycle and he succumbed to the injuries. The appellants approached the Tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹5,10,000/-.

3. The respondent-insurer filed a written statement, admitting the insurance policy, but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A4 were marked on the side of the appellants. No documentary evidence was marked on the side of the respondent. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹5,62,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition, till realization, against the respondent being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have come up in appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants claims enhancement mainly under the following heads:- I. Notional income Though the appellants claimed an amount of ₹15,000 per month towards the notional income, the Tribunal had awarded only an amount of ₹7,000/-. The learned Counsel for the appellants submit that the deceased was an agriculturist. However, there is no evidence to prove the income of the deceased. Following the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236], the monthly income ought to have been taken at ₹11,000/-. Hence, I am inclined to re-fix the notional income at ₹11,000/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand Only) per month.

II. Loss of dependency Under the said head, the Tribunal had awarded only an amount of ₹4,41,000/-, taking into consideration ₹7,000/- as the notional income. Since the notional income has been refixed at ₹11,000/-, the loss of dependency has to be recalculated, totalling to an amount of ₹6,93,000/- (11,000 x 12 x 7 x 3/ ). Thus there will be an additional

4 amount of ₹2,52,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Two Thousand Only) under the said head.

III. Loss of consortium The learned Counsel for the appellants submit that only an amount of ₹40,000/- was granted by the Tribunal under the said head though the legal heirs are four in number. The Tribunal ought to have granted an additional amount of ₹1,20,000/- towards the head of loss of consortium. Considering the fact that there are four legal heirs, the appellants are entitled to get a total compensation of ₹1,60,000/- towards loss of consortium. Since the Tribunal has already awarded ₹40,000/- towards loss of consortium and ₹30,000/- towards loss of love and affection, I am inclined to grant an additional amount of ₹90,000/- (Rupees Ninety Thousand Only) under the head loss of consortium.

Thus, the impugned award of the Tribunal is modified as follows;