The Court held that compensation for loss due to death needs to be enhanced based on established legal principles regarding loss of consortium and notional income.

J U D G M E N T

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) has been filed by the claim petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.270/2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 10/01/2020. The respondents herein are the respondents in the petition. In this appeal, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition.

2. According to the claim petitioner, on 10/01/2010 at 04:00 p.m., the deceased was riding his bicycle and when he reached at Thaikkad Mavinchuvadu, a Van bearing registration No.KL-46-A-8167 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down as a result of which the deceased sustained grievous injuries, to which he succumbed. An amount of ₹15,00,000/- was claimed as compensation under various heads.

3. The second respondent/owner filed written statement admitting the policy, but denying rash and negligent driving by the first respondent.

4. The third respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the policy. It was contended that the first respondent had no valid driving license at the time of the incident. The age, income, injuries and hospitalization were disputed. It was also contended that the amount claimed was excessive.

5. During the course of the proceedings before the Tribunal, the father of the deceased was impleaded as the 4^th respondent. He filed an affidavit stating that he has been living separately for the past several years and that he has no objection in giving the entire compensation amount to the claim petitioner.

6. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A16 were marked on the side of the claim petitioner and Exts.B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the third respondent. No oral evidence was adduced by either side.

7. The Tribunal on consideration of the documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the first respondent/driver of the offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹7,85,730/- together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the claim petitioner has come up in appeal.

8. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court.

9. Heard both sides.

10. The award of compensation by the Tribunal under the following head is challenged by the claim petitioner -

Notional income It is pointed out that in the light of the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. , (2011) 13 SCC 236 , the amount of ₹4,000/- fixed as the notional income is not correct and the same needs to be suitably enhanced. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that the claim was for ₹4,000/- and the Tribunal has granted the entire amount also and therefore, it does not require any enhancement.

In the light of the dictum in Ramachandrappa (Supra), I find that an amount of ₹7,500/- can be fixed as the notional income.

Loss of consortium Admittedly, the claim petitioner is the mother of the deceased. An amount of ₹75,000/- was claimed towards loss of consortium, however, no amount has been granted by the Tribunal. Going by the dictums in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram , (2018) 18 SCC 130 : 2018 KHC 6697, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur , AIR 2020 SC 3076 : 2023 KHC 760 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Somwati , 2020 KHC 6530 : (2020)

9 SCC 644, the claim petitioner being the mother of the deceased is entitled to filial compensation at the rate of ₹40,000/-. As per the dictum in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi , 2017 (5) KHC 350 : (2017) 16 SCC 680 , pronounced on 31/10/2017, the consortium amount has to