Enhancement of compensation was awarded based on revised income and considerations of dependency and pain, consistent with established law.

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the claimants in OP(MV) No.155 of 2010 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimants was that on 31.01.2009, while the deceased was pillion riding on a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.TN-37-AS-6581 ridden by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, the second respondent lost control over the motorcycle while avoiding a gutter which caused it to go off the road and hit against a wall, 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 ₹5,00,000/-.

3. Respondents 1 and 2, who are the owner and rider of the offending vehicle respectively, remained ex parte before the tribunal. 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 and B1 to B3 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 rider of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of ₹4,01,500/- 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, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, 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 deceased was a goldsmith, however, the tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased notionally only at ₹3,500/-. 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 2009, the monthly income of a coolie is fixed at ₹7,000/- and seeks for an enhancement of the income fixed. Accordingly, in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), I deem it appropriate to refix the monthly income of the deceased at ₹7,000/-.

5.2. Loss of dependency - Since the monthly income of the deceased is refixed at ₹7,000/-, compensation towards loss of dependency has to be recalculated. The deceased was 27 years old at the time of the accident and following the judgment 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 ₹9,800/- (7000 + 2800). The multiplier to be adopted is “17”. 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 ₹9,99,600/- (9800 x 12 x 17 x 1/2) towards loss of dependency. Hence, there will be an additional amount of ₹6,53,100/- under this head.

5.3. Pain and suffering - The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the death was not spontaneous and the deceased had to undergo severe pain and suffering, however, no compensation was awarded by the tribuna