The legal principle established recognizes adjustment of compensation based on the deceased's notional income and the entitlement to consortium damages under specified legal precedents.

J U D G M E N T

This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) by the claim petitioners in O.P.(MV) No.358/2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vatakara, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 01/11/2018. The sole respondent herein is the third respondent/insurer in the petition. In this appeal, the parties and documents will be referred to as described in the original petition. 2. According to the claim petitioners, on 19/08/2016 at about

08:10 a.m. while the deceased was pillion riding on motorcycle bearing registration no.KL-56/9932 from her residence to Arikkulam and when she reached the place by name Attavayal, bus bearing registration no. KL-56/B-9629 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, knocked her down, as a result of which she sustained grievous injuries to which she succumbed. A sum of ₹40,00,000/- was claimed as compensation under various heads.

3. The first respondent/owner and the second respondent/driver filed joint written statement admitting the accident but denying negligence on the part of the latter.

4. The third respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the policy but denying negligence on the part of the second respondent/driver of the offending bus. The age, avocation and income of the deceased were disputed. It was also contended that the amount claimed was excessive.

5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A45 were marked on the side of the claim petitioners. No documentary evidence was produced on the side of the respondents.

6. The Tribunal on consideration of the documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the second respondent/driver of the offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹39,62,000/- together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the claim petitioners have come up in appeal.

7. 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.

8. Heard both sides.

9. The Award of compensation by the Tribunal under the following heads is challenged by the claim petitioners -

Notional income It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioners that the deceased being a highly qualified person, the notional income of ₹20,000/- fixed by the tribunal is quite low and hence the same ought to have been fixed at least at ₹25,000/-. In support of the argument he draws my attention specifically to Exts.A29 and A42 as well as the dictums in Kirti v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , 2021 (1) KHC 196: (2021) 2 SCC 166 and Bishnupriya Panda v. Basanti Manjari Mohanty , 2023 KHC 7243 : 2023 ACJ 2393 . My attention is also drawn to the G.O.(P).No.56/2017/Fin dated 28/04/2017. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that the amount that has been fixed by the Tribunal is quite reasonable and therefore no further enhancement is called for.

9.1. The Tribunal in paragraph no.17 of the impugned judgment has discussed the qualifications of the deceased and after taking into account all the documents produced has fixed the notional income at ₹20,000/-. Kirti (Supra), was a case in which no documents were produced to substantiate the claim regarding the income of one of the claimants therein, who was stated to be employed as a teacher. The accident in the said case took place on 12/04/2014. The Apex Co