The court emphasized adapting compensation based on current legal standards for dependency and other losses, establishing uniformity in calculation methodologies.

JUDGMENT

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

No.21 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein are the respondents

1and 3 before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimants, on 12.01.2007 at about 3:00 p.m, while the deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KL-08-L-3490 through NH 47, a lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-8-Z-1627 driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit on the motorcycle. Whereby, he sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the same. The legal heirs of the deceased approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹6,24,500/-, limited to ₹5,00,000/-.

3. The first respondent/the registered owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte before the tribunal. The 2^nd respondent/driver filed a written statement contending that the vehicle has a valid policy and the 3^rd respondent is liable to pay the compensation. The third respondent/insurer filed a written statement admitting the policy of the offending vehicle but disputing the compensation claimed and denying negligence. Before the tribunal, PW1 was examined, and Exts.A1 to A10 and Exts.B1 and B2 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 ₹1,80,000/- with interest @7.5% per annum as compensation under different heads against the 3^rd respondent, being the insurer and further recover the same from the 1^st respondent- owner. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimants 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 ₹12,000/- was claimed as the income of the deceased, who alleged to be a goldsmith, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹4,000/-. The learned Standing Counsel for the insurer submitted that the employer, who issued Ext.A5, was examined as PW1, no document was produced to prove that he was paying an amount of ₹12,000/- to the deceased. However, considering the fact that he was a goldsmith by profession, I find it appropriate to fix the income as ₹8,000/-. Since the deceased was a goldsmith by profession, who was aged 24 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 are to be added. 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 learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the tribunal had adopted the multiplier as ‘7’ instead of ‘18’. I find that since the deceased was aged 24 years at the time of the accident, the multiplier to be adopted is ‘18’. Since the deceased was a bachelor, the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is ½. 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 v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], the compensation payable under the head loss of dependency is recalculated thus: ₹12,09,600/- (11,200 x 12 x 18 x 1/2) as th