The court modified the compensation awarded by the tribunal to enhance certain claims based on established legal precedents.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimants in O.P (MV) No.140 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Thodupuzha dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. The respondents herein are the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimants, on 17.01.2012 at about 09.30 pm, while the deceased was riding his motor bike bearing registration No.KL-38-6621, an ambulance bearing registration No.KL-6-E-8410 driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motor bike. As a result of the accident, he sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The claimants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹9,22,500/-.

3. The 1^st, 2^nd and 3rd respondents were the driver, registered owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle, respectively. Respondents 1 and 2 entered appearance and did not file any written statement. The 3^rd respondent/insurer of the offending

2025:KER:94391 vehicle filed a written statement admitting the policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal Exts.A1 to A12 and Ext.B1 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹10,45,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest @9% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs from the 3^rd respondent being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the award passed by the tribunal, the claimants have come up in appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants is mainly challenging the award under the following heads:-

Notional income :- The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹6,000/- as the monthly income of the injured who was working in a private firm. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that, as per 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 the year 2012 is fixed at ₹8,500/- per month and sought for enhancement of fixation of monthly income. Following

2025:KER:94391 the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), in order to award a just compensation, I find it is appropriate to refix the monthly income as ₹8,500/-.

Compensation for loss of dependency :- The learned standing counsel for the insurance company submitted that, since the deceased was aged 26 years at the time of the accident and was working in a private firm, going by the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)], the tribunal ought to have added 40% of the income fixed towards future prospects, instead of 50%. I find force in the said argument. Following the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), I am inclined to add 40% future prospects towards income fixed. Since the notional income is fixed at ₹8,500/-, by adding 40% towards future prospects, the income is recalculated as ₹11,900/- for the purpose of awarding compensation under the head loss of dependency. Accordingly, following the apex court judgments in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], the compensation payable under the said head is recalculated as thus: ₹12,13,800/- (11,900x12x17x1/2). The tribunal has already awarded an amount of ₹9,18,000/- under the said head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹2,95,800/- under the

2025:KER:94391 head loss of dependency.

Compensation for funeral expenses :- On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the tribunal has not awarded any amount towards funeral expenses. However, the tribunal has gran