The court modified the notional income for compensation and recognized the right of children to compensation for loss of consortium.

JUDGMENT

The legal heirs of one Sabu aged 46, who died in an accident on 08.09.2017, have instituted this appeal seeking to challenge the award dated 11.10.2019 in O.P.(MV) No.412 of

2018 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur. 2. Heard Sri.A.N.Santhosh, the learned Counsel for the appellants, as well as Smt.Latha Susan Cherian, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-insurance company.

3. The first issue arising for consideration is with respect to the fixation of the notional income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- by the Tribunal. A perusal of paragraph 9 of the impugned award shows that the claimants had contended that the deceased was working as an electrician and was earning a monthly income of Rs.20,000/-. They also relied upon Ext.A9, the National Trade Certificate, to establish the vocation of the deceased. However, the ultimate finding in the impugned award is that “the documents produced did not prove the income”. From this, it is clear that the doubt entertained by the Tribunal pertained only to the income of the deceased and not to his vocation.

4. It is on the strength of the above finding that the fixation of the notional income has to be determined. Even applying the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [ (2011) 13 SCC 236 ], for an accident that occurred in the year 2017, the notional income ought to have been fixed at Rs.11,000/-. Furthermore, since the fact that the deceased was an electrician is not in dispute, that aspect also ought to have been considered by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant also relied on the notification issued under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act , 1948, by the State of Kerala to contend that at least the fixation under the said notification ought to be adopted. However, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances as reflected in the award of the Tribunal, I am of the opinion that the notional income can be fixed at Rs.16,000/- per month. Therefore, the award of the Tribunal would stand modified to that extent. 5. The second issue, arising for consideration in this appeal, is as regards the requirement for extending the compensation under the head “loss of consortium” to the children of the deceased – appellants 2 and 3 - before this Court. There is no dispute that apart from the wife, children were also entitled for the afore benefit. That being the position, I hold that appellants 2 and 3 herein are also entitled for compensation under the head “loss of consortium”, apart from the 1^st appellant herein.

6. In the afore extent, the impugned award of the Tribunal would stand modified as follows;

7. This Court also notices that there was a delay of 66 days in filing this appeal, which was condoned by the order dated 13.07.2021. In such circumstances, the appellants would not be entitled for interest for the period covered by the afore delay with reference to the enhanced compensation.

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed, modifying the impugned award, entitling the appellants to get an additional amount of Rs.8,60,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs and Sixty Thousand only), along with the amounts already awarded by the Tribunal, to be paid by the – Insurance Company. Needless to say, all other findings and directions of the Tribunal in the impugned award, will remain unaltered. However, insofar as the enhancement ordered through this appeal is concerned, I further hold that the appellants will be entitled to interest only at 8%.