Compensation for fatal accidents must reflect the true financial implications of loss; notional income cannot unjustly limit claimant rights.

1. Both the appeals arise out of a common award in two claim cases. Two ladies of moderately young age, who were travelling on a TVS Scooty, was hit by a car which was driven in a reckless manner causing fatal injuries to them. Both of them succumbed to the injuries on the date of accident itself. The Tribunal found that the driver of the car was negligent in causing the accident and accordingly held the third respondent / insurer as liable for payment of compensation.

2. The appellants / claimants in MACA 926/2004 arising out of OP (MV) 3924/97 are the husband, son and parents of late Smt. Padmaja Mathew who was working as "Executive House Keeper" in Taj Malabar Hotel at Willingdon Island, Kochi. The appellant in MACA 973/2004 arising out of OP (MV) 3922/97 is the husband of late Smt. Suravi Sinha who was working as the "Deputy House Keeper'' in the very same hotel. The original claimants in that case are the husband and the parents. The father of the deceased is no more. The mother of the deceased, who was third claimant, is impleaded in the appeal as 4th respondent. The deceased in the former case was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.10,570/- and the deceased in the latter case was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.6000/-. The appellants in the former case claimed that the deceased was aged 37. But the Tribunal found that her age as per the postmortem certificate was 42 only. The appellant in the latter case claimed the age of the deceased was 27. The husbands of the deceased ladies in both cases were working under management of the very same hotel. The deceased Smt. Padmaja Mathew's husband was working as Genera! Manager of the Taj Residency at Vishakapatnam and the husband of deceased Smt. Suravi Sinha was also employed in Taj Malabar Hotel itself, It has come out in evidence that the husband in the former case was getting a monthly salary of Rs.30,000/- and the husband of the deceased in the latter case is getting a monthly salary of Rs.12,000/-. The Husband of late Smt. Suravi Sinha got re - married within a period of one year from the date of accident. In both the cases the Tribunal had not accepted the salary of the deceased ladies as multiplicand for computing loss of estate and dependency, mainly based on the conclusion that their husbands and family members were not depending solely on the income derived out of their employment. A notional monthly income @ Rs.2000/- and Rs.1500/- respectively was adopted for computing dependency and holding that the claimants were not deprived of their source of livelihood. The Tribunal observed that the claimants should not be over compensated. Observing that the cases are having a special feature calling deviation even from the provisions contained in the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act , and relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company v. Patricia Jean Mahajan and Others , 2002 KHC 986 : AIR 2002 SC 2607 : 2002 (3) KLT SN 73 : 2002 (6) SCC 281 , the Tribunal adopted a lower multiplier. The compensation for loss of estate and dependency was thus computed on the basis of notional income adopted for a lessor multiplier. The total compensation awarded in MACA 926/2004 (OP (MV) No. 3924/1997) is Rs.3,19,000/- and in MACA 973/2004 (OP (MV) No. 3922/1997) is Rs.2,34,500/-.

3. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants and the Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent Insurance Company. The appellants vehemently contended that the method adopted in fixing the notional income and lower multiplier for computing loss of estate and dependency is highly erroneous, improper, unreasonable and inadequate. On the other han