The court revised compensation calculation based on appropriate notional income and clarified interest implications on delayed claims.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by claimants 1 to 4 in O.P.(MV) No.

1268/2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein are the respondents and the 5^th claimant before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimants, on 20.04.2009, while the deceased was driving an ambulance bearing Reg.No.KL- 02/V 1526, a lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-7/A 9417 driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit the ambulance. As a result the deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The claimants approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹9,00,000/-.

3. Respondents 1 and 2/the registered owner and the driver of the offending vehicle respectively, remained ex parte before the tribunal. The third respondent insurer filed a written statement admitting the insurance policy, disputing the quantum of compensation claimed and denying the negligence. Exts.A1 to A16 were marked. PW’s 1 and 2 were examined. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a total compensation of ₹7,89,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum against the respondent insurer; and in default of payment as above, penal interest @ 9% per annum was also awarded. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, 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 though an amount of ₹8,000/- was claimed as the income of the deceased, who was an ambulance driver by profession, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹5,500/-. 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 2009 is fixed as ₹7,000/- and sought for enhancement of income. Considering the fact that the accident occurred while he was driving the ambulance and in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, I find it appropriate to fix the income at ₹8,000/-. 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 ₹11,200/- for awarding compensation under the head loss of dependency.

Loss of dependency :- The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that since there were four legal heirs, the tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/3rd, instead of deducting 1/4th, towards the personal and living expenses. I find that since there were four legal heirs including father, wife and two children, the deduction to be made is 1/4th and not 1/3rd. Since the notional income after adding 40% future prospects is re-fixed as ₹11,200/-, 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 loss of dependency is re-calculated thus: (11200 x 12 x 17 x 3/4) ₹17,13,600/-. The tribunal has awarded an amount of ₹7,48,068/- under the head loss of dependency. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹9,65,532/- under the afore head.

L oss of co nsortium/loss of love and affection :- On a perusal of the award, it is seen that towards loss of consortium, the tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹10,000/-, whereas, since there were four legal heirs, they were entitled for a total amount of ₹1,60,000/-. Since