The court established that compensation for loss of dependency must consider future earnings and reasonable increases in various claim categories.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by claimants 2 & 3 in O.P.(MV) No.

311/2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. The respondents herein were the respondents/3^rd respondent, 1^st claimant and the additional 4^th claimant before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimants, on 27.11.2007 at about

6 pm., while the deceased was riding his motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-23/5674 through Karunagappally-Paickamkadavu road, another motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-2G/695 driven by the 1^st respondent, in a rash and negligent manner hit on the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result the deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries on 29.11.2007. The claimants approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹8,22,000/-.

3. Respondents 1 and 2, who are the driver and owner of the offending vehicle respectively, remained ex parte before the tribunal. The 3^rd respondent insurer filed a written statement admitting the insurance policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed and also contended that the accident occurred not due to the negligence of the 1^st respondent. The 3^rd respondent subsequently filed an additional written statement contending that the legal-heir certificate was not produced before the Court. Exts.A1 to A10 were marked. PW1 was examined. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a total compensation of ₹8,22,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum against the respondent 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 insurance company.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants claims enhancement mainly under the following heads :-

Notional income :- The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though an amount of ₹6,000/- was claimed, the tribunal had taken only an amount of 5,000/-. The learned counsel further submitted that even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [ 2011 (13) SCC 236 ], the income of a Coolie, for an accident in 2007 is fixed as ₹6,000/- and sought for enhancement of income. In order to award a just and reasonable compensation, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), I find it appropriate to fix the income at ₹6,000/-. Since the deceased was aged 28 at the time of the accident, by adding 40% future prospects as per National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662(SC)], to the income now fixed, the amount will be ₹8,400/- for awarding compensation under the head loss of dependency.

Loss of dependency :- Since the notional income after adding 40% future prospects is re-fixed as ₹8,400/-, following the judgments in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], the compensation payable under the head is re-calculated thus: (8,400 x 12 x 17 x 3/4) ₹12,85,200/-. The tribunal has awarded an amount of ₹7,65,000/- under the head loss of dependency. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹5,20,200/-

under the head loss of dependency.

Loss of consortium :- The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹10,000/- towards loss of consortium, whereas they were entitled for a total amount of ₹1,60,000/- since there were four legal heirs. Since the tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹10,000/- towards loss of consortium, I find that they are entitled for 10% enhancement in a span of three years after 2017. Accordingly, they are entitled for a total com