The court modified the compensation awarded in motor accident claims based on accurate income assessment and multiplier application.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by appellants/claimants in O.P.(MV)

No. 616/2015 on the file of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. The respondents herein are the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimants, on 02.10.2014 at about

10.20 pm., while the deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-59/K-737 along the NH Bypass Palarivattom, a tanker lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-07/U-1760 driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against him. As a result the deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the same date. The appellants approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹16,85,000/- which was limited to ₹10,00,000/-.

3. Respondents 1 and 2, who are the owner and driver of the offending vehicle respectively, remained ex parte before the tribunal. The 3^rd respondent insurer filed a written statement contending that the claim petition is defective due to non-joinder of necessary parties, as the owner and insurer of the motorcycle ridden by the claimant were not impleaded.

The respondent denies liability, stating that the insured failed to notify the accident or produce relevant documents, and that the deceased’s negligence contributed to the accident. Exts.A1 to A12 were marked. XW1 was examined. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a total compensation of ₹6,57,000/- with interest @ 9% 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 the income of ₹5,000/- claimed was accepted by the tribunal. 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 2014 is fixed as ₹9,500/- and sought for enhancement of income. The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company, however, submitted that in Annexure A8 salary certificate of the deceased, the salary was shown as ₹5,000/-. The learned standing counsel further submitted that the employer was examined as XW1 and he had deposed that the deceased was working in his establishment and he was earning an amount of ₹5,000/-. Considering the fact that he was a skilled worker as well as a diploma holder and in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, I find it appropriate to fix the income at ₹9,500/-. 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 ₹13,300/- for awarding compensation under the head loss of dependency.

Loss of dependency :- The deceased was aged 22 years at the time of the accident and the multiplier to be adopted is ‘18’. However, the tribunal had adopted only ‘11’ taking into consideration the age of the parents. I find that the multiplier adopted by the tribunal is incorrect and the correct multiplier to be adopted is ’18’. Since the notional income after adding 40% future prospects is re-fixed as ₹13,300/-, 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: (13,300 x 12 x 18 x 1/2) ₹14,36,400/-. The tribunal has awarded an amount of ₹4,95,000/- under the head loss of dependency. T