Compensation assessments must reflect fair income evaluations and account for dependency losses, guided by established case law.

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the claimants in OP(MV)

No.1210 of 2011 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam, claiming compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimants is that on 13.11.2010, while the deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.TN-72/8574 along Chavara-Sasthamcotta public road, a KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KL- 15/8513 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle, whereby he sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The claimants, being the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹8,00,000/-.

3. The second respondent/driver of the offending vehicle remained ex parte before the tribunal. The first respondent KSRTC, who is the owner of the offending vehicle, filed a written statement, alleging negligence on the part of the deceased. The third respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Exts.A1 to A9 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of ₹2,53,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the third respondent being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimants have come up in appeal.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants claims enhancement under the following heads:

5.1. Notional income - The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellant was a contract worker and was earning ₹10,000/- per month, however, the tribunal has fixed the monthly income notionally only at ₹5,000/-. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236] , for an accident that occurred in 2010, the monthly income of a coolie is fixed at ₹7,500/- and seeks for an enhancement of the income fixed. Accordingly, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), I deem it appropriate to refix the monthly income of the deceased at ₹7,500/-.

5.2. Loss of dependency - Since the monthly income of the deceased is refixed at ₹7,500/-, compensation towards loss of dependency has to be recalculated. The deceased was 36 years old at the time of the accident and following the judgement in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662(SC)], 40% future prospects can be added to the income now fixed. Thus, after adding 40% of the notional income towards future prospects, the amount would be arrived at ₹10,500/- (7500 + 3000). The learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the tribunal wrongly adopted the multiplier “7” instead of “15”. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants and adopt “15” as the multiplier for assessing compensation, since the deceased was 36 years at the time of accident. The deceased was a bachelor and hence, one-half of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses. Accordingly, following the judgments in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], the appellants will be entitled to get a total compensation of ₹9,45,000/- (10500 x 12 x 1