The notional income for compensation calculations must reflect actual earnings and relevant legal standards, including separate compensation for loss of consortium to family members.

J U D G M E N T

The legal heirs of one Cherian, aged 62, who succumbed to the injuries sustained in an accident on 22.12.2017, instituted O.P.(M.V.) No.144 of 2018, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal’), seeking compensation. By the impugned award dated 04.09.2020, the Tribunal fixed the notional -

income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/ per month and proceeded to calculate the compensation under various heads.

2. Heard Dr.Stanly Chazhoor, the learned counsel for the appellants, as well as Sri.P.K.Manoj Kumar, the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent – insurance company.

3. The dispute in this appeal is essentially regarding the fixation of the notional income of the deceased at -

Rs.10,000/ per month by the Tribunal. A reading of the award would show that the deceased was stated to be conducting a tea shop, earning a monthly income of Rs.25,000/ . Ext.A13 rent agreement between the deceased and the landlord was relied upon in support of this contention. At the same time, the award of the Tribunal shows that the agreement shows that the premise in question was taken on rent for “conducting business”. However, no licence from the local authority was produced in support of the afore contention by the claimants. It is in such circumstances that the Tribunal arrived at -

Rs.10,000/ per month as the notional income.

4. However, paragraph No.12 of the award would show that the Tribunal virtually accepted the contention of the claimants that the deceased was conducting a tea shop. It was with reference to that, according to the Tribunal, the income -

was fixed on a “higher side” at Rs.10,000/ . In my opinion, when the “ground reality” that the deceased was conducting a “tea shop” is accepted as above, the Tribunal was not justified -

in fixing the notional income at Rs.10,000/ per month. This is primarily because, even according to the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011) 13 SCC 236], as regards a coolie, during the year 2017, the notional income ought to have been fixed at Rs.11,000/ per month. In such circumstances, when even as regards a coolie, an amount of Rs.11,000/ ought to have been fixed as the notional income, and when the deceased was pointed out to be running a tea shop, which has been acted upon by the -

Tribunal, the notional income requires to be re fixed on a higher pedestal.

5. Though Dr.Stanley would contend that the fixation pursuant to the notifications issued under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 , requires to be adopted in the case at hand, I notice that the claimants have failed to produce any evidence apart from Ext.A13 in support of their contention that the deceased was running a tea shop. That being so, the claimants would not be entitled for fixation of notional income as per the notifications issued under the . However, even in such a scenario, insofar as the deceased was admittedly running a tea shop, the notional income ought to be fixed at Rs.15,000/ per month, taking into account the virtual admission as regards the conduct of the tea shop as above.

6. Though, Sri.Manoj Kumar, the learned counsel for the insurance company, would add that there is no loss of income insofar as the business of the tea shop has been continued, I notice that there is no evidence for that aspect, also. True, the claimants have not offered themselves for examination before the Tribunal. But that by itself would not -

disentitle the claimants from claiming the re fixation of the notional income as above and, therefore, I am of