The judgment reinforces the application of judicial precedents in recalibrating compensation for accident claims, ensuring just and equitable outcomes for claimants.

JUDGMENT

Since these two appeals arise from the very same award dated

12.05.2016 in O.P.(MV) No.374 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Kottayam, these appeals are heard together and being disposed of by this judgment. M.A.C.A.No.3063 of 2016 is filed by the 3^rd respondent/insurance company challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, whereas MACA No.3483 of 2016 is filed by the claimants dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the tribunal.

2. The facts of the case are as follows: On 07.06.2012, at about

00:05 a.m., while the deceased was travelling along with others in a tempo traveller bearing reg. No. KL-5/AD-9045, driven by the 1^st respondent, in a rash and negligent manner, overturned and capsized. As a result of the accident, the deceased had sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the same day. The claimants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹12,00,000/-.

3. The 1^st respondent/driver remained ex parte before the tribunal. The 2^nd respondent/owner filed a written statement and contended that the accident occurred in the attempt of the 1^st respondent to avoid a greater accident with a car coming from the opposite direction at a higher speed. The 3^rd respondent – insurer filed a written statement, admitting the insurance policy, disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A10 were marked. The tribunal after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹8,96,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation with proportionate costs against the respondent being the insurer. Challenging the impugned award, the 3rd respondent insurer and dissatisfied with the award, the claimants have come up in appeal.

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

Notional income :- The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹5,000/- as the monthly income of the injured who was an assistant mechanic 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 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 appearing for the insurance company submitted that the Tribunal erroneously added 50% towards future prospects instead of 40%. Since the deceased was aged 23 years at the time of the accident, going by the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)], the claimants are entitled to add 40% of the income fixed towards future prospects. 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. The learned counsel for the claimants further submitted that the tribunal had adopted the multiplier as 17 instead of 18. The deceased was aged 23 years and was a bachelor; therefore, the correct multiplier to be adopted is 18. Accordingly, following the apex court judgments in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [20