Court upheld the need for enhanced compensation in motor accident claims based on factual and legal determinations.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by claimants 1 & 3 in O.P.(MV)

No. 94 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondent herein is the 2^nd respondent before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimants, on 26.11.2006, while the deceased Muhammed Riyaz was driving a mini door tempo bearing Reg.No.KL-04/H-1746 through Aluva to Perumbavoor KSRTC road, a lorry bearing Reg.No.KL- 02/C-8429 driven by the additional 5^th respondent, in a rash and negligent manner hit against minidoor tempo. As a result the deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The legal representatives of the deceased/claimants approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹8,86,000/- which was limited to ₹8,00,000/-. For brevity, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the tribunal.

3. The first respondent/registered owner, third respondent/owner of the mini door tempo and the additional 5^th respondent/driver of the offending vehicle remained ex-parte before the tribunal. The second respondent/insurer of the lorry and the fourth respondent/insurer of the mini door tempo has filed a joint written statement, admitting the policy for both the vehicles but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed and also contended that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the deceased himself. Exts.A1 to A13 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a total compensation of ₹5,55,428/- with interest @ 8% per annum against the second respondent insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimants 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 claimants submitted that though an amount of ₹6,000/- was claimed, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹3,500/- as the income of the deceased, who was a driver by profession. 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 2006 is fixed as ₹5,500/- and sought for enhancement of income fixed. Considering that the accident occured while he was driving the tempo and that he is a driver by profession, in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, I find it appropriate to re-fix the income at ₹6,000/-. Since the deceased was aged 21 years at the time of the accident, 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 ₹8,400/- for awarding compensation under the head loss of dependency.

Loss of dependency :- Since the notional income after adding future prospects is re-fixed as ₹8,400/-, 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 is re-calculated thus as (8,400 x 12 x 18 x 2/3) ₹12,09,600/-. The tribunal has awarded an amount of ₹5,03,928/- under the head loss of dependency. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹7,05,672/- under the head loss of dependency.

Loss of consortium :- The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹25,000/- towards loss of consortium, whereas they were entitled for a total amount of ₹1,20,000/- since there were three legal heirs. Since the