Compensation for motor accident claims must be calculated considering the deceased's potential income and relevant legal precedents.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the legal heirs of the claimant in O.P (MV)

No.191 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. The respondents herein are the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimants, on 07.05.2009 at about 08.00 pm, while the deceased was travelling in a motorcycle bearing registration No. PY-03/3244 as a pillion rider, a car bearing registration No.KL-58- B-6175 driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit on the motorcycle. As a result of the accident, the claimant had sustained serious injuries and later succumbed to the injuries. The claimants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹18,00,000/-.

3. The first and second respondent/driver and owner of the offending car entered appearance and did not file a written statement. The 3^rd respondent/insurer filed a written statement admitting the validity of the policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed and denied that the 1^st respondent was not holding a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle at the time of accident. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A12 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹11,23,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest @9% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs against the 3^rd respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurance company.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant claims enhancement mainly under the following heads :-

Notional income:- The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that though an amount of ₹12,000/- was claimed, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹4,000/- as the monthly income of the injured who was a cable operator by profession. The learned counsel also relied on Ext.A4 service certificate, wherein his salary is shown as ₹12,000/-. However, the said certificate was not proved by examining the employer. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that, as per 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 the year 2009 is fixed at ₹7,000/- per month and sought for enhancement of fixation of monthly income. Considering the fact that the deceased was a cable operator, in order to award just compensation, I find it is appropriate to refix the monthly income as ₹8,000/-

Compensation for loss of dependency :- The learned standing counsel submitted that, since the deceased was aged 33 years at the time of the accident, going by the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)], the tribunal ought to have added 40% of the income fixed towards future prospects, instead of 50%. I find force in the said argument. Following the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), I am inclined to add 40% of the future towards re-fixed income. Since the notional income is fixed at ₹8,000/-, by adding 40% towards future prospects, the income is recalculated as ₹11,200/- for the purpose of awarding compensation under the head loss of dependency. Accordingly, following the apex court judgments in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], the compensation payable under the said