The court determined just compensation by recalculating income and dependency considerations in accordance with relevant case law.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the legal heirs of the claimant in O.P (MV) No.1227 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. The respondent herein is the 3^rd respondent before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimants, on 15.03.2013 at about 09.10 pm, while the deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing reg. No. KL- 29D 5034, a car bearing registration No.KL-29-F-3991, driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the motorcycle. As a result of the accident, the deceased had sustained serious injuries and succumbed to them. The claimants, being the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹40,00,000/-.

3. The second respondent/driver of the offending vehicle remained ex parte before the tribunal. The 1^st respondent entered appearance and filed a written statement contending that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the deceased and that the 2nd respondent was driving the vehicle with due care and caution. It is further contended that the vehicle was covered by a valid policy, though the quantum of compensation claimed is disputed. The 3^rd respondent/insurer filed a written statement admitting the validity of the policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Pws 1 and 2 were examined, and Exts.A1 to A11 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹10,72,800/- as compensation under different heads with interest @9% per annum from the date of the 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 claimants, the legal heirs of the deceased, have come up in appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent/insurer.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation under the following heads :

Notional income:- The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that though an amount of ₹25,000/- was claimed as the income of the deceased who was a tile worker, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹6,000/-. It is further submitted that PW2, who issued Ext.A10 certificate, was examined and testified that the deceased, Jijimon, was working under him as a tile worker. However, no other document was produced to prove his income. Considering the avocation of the deceased, in order to award just and reasonable compensation, I find it appropriate to re-

fix the income of the deceased as ₹10,000/-.

Compensation for loss of dependency:- The deceased was aged 32 years at the time of the accident and, going by the judgment in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)], 40% future prospects is to be added towards the monthly income for calculation of loss of dependency. By adding 40% future prospects towards the monthly income now fixed, the income would be ₹14,000/- (10,000 + 40% of 10,000) for awarding compensation under the head, loss of dependency.

Accordingly, following Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], and Pranay Sethi (supra), the total compensation payable under the head loss of dependency is recalculated thus: ₹17,92,000/- (14,000 x 12 x 16 x 2/3). The tribunal had granted an amount of ₹7,68,000/- under the said head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹10,24,000/- under the head loss of dependency.

Compensation for loss of estate:- The learned counsel for the appellant submitte