The court modified the compensation awarded by the lower tribunal based on recalibrated assessments of dependency, future prospects, loss of consortium, and invalidated penal interest.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.66 of

2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondent herein is the 3^rd respondent before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimant is that on 26.12.2012 at about 12.45 p.m, while the deceased was driving an autorickshaw bearing Reg. KL-34/7013, a stage carriage bus bearing Reg. No.KL-37/ 1344 driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the autorickshaw, causing it to overturn and the deceased to fall down. As a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to those injuries on 31.12.2012. The claimant, who is the legal heir of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹20,84,000/-

limited to ₹12,00,000/-.

3. The first and second respondents/ driver and the owner of the offending vehicle respectively filed a written statement contending that the accident occurred was not due to the negligence of the first respondent and they further submitted that the first respondent held a valid driving licence and prayed for the dismissal of the original petition. The third respondent- insurer also filed a written statement admitting the insurance policy but disputing the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and denying negligence. Before the tribunal, PWs 1 And 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A16 and Exts. B1 and B2 were marked. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a compensation of ₹7,38,750/- under different heads with interest @9% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the 3^rd respondent being the insurer; and in default of payment as above, penal interest @ 11% per annum was also awarded. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal.

4. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel for the insurer.

5. The appellant has filed this appeal challenging compensation under the following heads:-

Notional income :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though the appellant had claimed an amount of ₹10,000/-, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹7,000/- as the income of the deceased, who was an autorickshaw driver by profession. It was further submitted that the even following the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236] , the income of the Coolie for an accident in 2012 is fixed at ₹8,500/- and sought for enhancement of the income. Considering the fact that the deceased was an autorickshaw driver by profession, I find it appropriate to re- fix the monthly income at ₹10,000/-. Since the deceased was aged 37 years at the time of the accident, I find that, following the apex court judgment in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662(SC)], an addition of 40% towards future prospects is justified. Accordingly, by adding 40% to the income fixed, the amount would be ₹14,000/- (₹10,000 + 40% of ₹10,000) for the purpose of calculating dependency.

Loss of D ependency :- Since the deceased was a bachelor, I find that deduction towards personal and living expenses is 1/2. Since he was aged 37 years at the time of accident, and hence the appropriate multiplier to be adopted is ‘15’. Since the monthly income after adding 40% future prospects is fixed at ₹14,000/-, following the judgments of the apex court 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 recalculated thus: ₹12,60,000/- (14,000 x 12 x 15 x 1/2) as the total