The court corrected the notional income for a driver under relevant wage regulations, establishing entitlement to increased compensation.

JUDGMENT

The claimant in O.P.(MV) No.1110 of 2017 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal), seeks to challenge the award dated 28.09.2020.

2. I have heard Dr.Stanly Chazhoor, learned counsel for the appellant, as well as Sri. P.K. Manoj Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company.

3. The claimant had pointed out that he was a driver by profession, earning a monthly income of Rs.25,000/- However, the fact that no evidence in support of the notional income, as above, has been adduced by the claimant is not in dispute. The challenge in this appeal is essentially regarding the fixation of notional income at Rs.9,000/- per month, in the above circumstances.

4. This Court notices that the appellant had relied upon Ext.A10 Driving Licence, in support of his contention that he was, admittedly, a driver. The Driving Licence, as above, shows that the appellant was indeed having a Driving Licence from 2009 onwards with reference to Light Motor Vehicle and Motorcycle. Though Dr.Stanly, the learned counsel for the appellant, would contend that he also having a badge for driving non-transport vehicle, it is noticed that the above certificate was obtained only from November 2019, and hence it ought not have any application to the accident that occurred during July, 2019. Even on the face of the above, the question arises as to whether the fixation of notional income at Rs.9,000/- requires any modification. Dr.Stanly, learned counsel for the appellant, would rely on the judgment of the Apex Court inManusha Sreekumar v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [2022 KHC OnLine 7106] and contend that the notional income requires to be fixed at Rs.15,600/- per month with reference to the notifications issued under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Payment of Fair Wages Act , 1971 as regards a skilled worker. Sri.Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the insurance company, would contend that the fixation, as above, has been carried out only with reference to the voluminous evidence produced in support of the contention as recorded in paragraph 5 of the judgment. This Court further notices that inManusha Sreekumar (supra), the Tribunal had fixed the notional income at Rs.17,500/-, being the cumulative salary with reference to the vocation of the driver and the additional income from the business carried on by the claimant in that case. However, when the matter was carried in appeal by the insurance company, this Court had fixed notional income at Rs.10,000/- with reference to the principles laid down inRamachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011) 13 SCC 236]. It is this fixation of the notional income that was challenged before the Apex Court. The Apex Court, noticing the fact that the claimant therein was, in fact, a driver and therefore, with reference to a skilled worker at Schedule B -

Category III of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Payment of Fair Wages Act , 1971, a driver would be earning an amount of Rs.15,600/-, the notional income was re-fixed at Rs.15,600/- per month by the Apex Court.

5. Applying the dictum laid down in the afore judgment, this Court notices that in the case at hand, the dispute was only regarding the notional income of the claimant. The fact that the claimant was a driver was not in dispute. This is also borne out by Ext.A7 Driving Licence. The fact that the claimant was indeed a driver can also be noticed from the subsequent acquisition of the badge for driving non-transport vehicles, as well as transport vehicles, as endorsed in the Driving Licence.

6. When that be so, ins