Compensation in motor accident claims must consider notional income, dependency, and corresponding enhancements per established legal precedents.

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the claimants in OP(MV)

No.1463 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein are the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimants, on 04.09.2011 at about 11.40 p.m., while the deceased was travelling in an autorickshaw along the Palakkad–Kozhikode National Highway, a goods vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-55 H 3736 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner collided with the autorickshaw, as a result of which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and subsequently succumbed to the same. The legal heirs of the deceased thereupon approached the Tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹14,00,000/-.

3. The first and second respondents were the registered owner and the driver of the offending vehicle, respectively. The 3^rd respondent/ insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but denying the negligence of the second respondent. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A18 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 driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of ₹5,02,000/- with interest @9% per annum as compensation under different heads against the 3^rd 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 appellants claim enhancement mainly under the following heads :-

Notional income :- The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that, though an amount of ₹10,000/-

was claimed as the monthly income of the deceased, the Tribunal had taken only ₹7,000/-. The learned counsel further submitted that the deceased was a two wheeler mechanic by profession. However, no documents have been produced in support of the claim. Considering the fact that he was a two wheeler mechanic, I find it appropriate to refix the income as ₹8,000/-. Since the deceased was aged 27 years at the time of the accident, following the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi & Ors [2017 (4) KLT 662 SC], 40% future prospects is to be added towards notional income. By adding 40% future prospects, I find that the monthly income will be ₹11,200/- (8,000 + 40% of 8,000) for the purpose of awarding compensation towards loss of dependency.

Loss of D ependency :- The deceased was a bachelor aged 27 years at the time of accident, and hence the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is 1/2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the multiplier adopted was ‘11’ instead of ‘17’. I find force in the said argument. The deceased was aged 27 at the time of the accident and following Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], I find that the multiplier to be adopted is 17. Since the monthly income after adding 40% future prospects is fixed at ₹11,200/-, following the judgments of the apex court in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma (supra), the compensation payable under the head loss of dependency is recalculated thus: ₹11,42,400/- (11,200 x 12 x 17 x 1/2), as the total compensation payable. The tribunal has awarded an amount of ₹4,62,000,/- under the head loss of dependency. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹6,80,400/- under the afore head.

Loss of consortium/loss of love and affection:- The learned counsel for the appellants submitted