Court reinforces the rationale for recalculating compensation based on established precedents for income and dependency calculations in fatal accident claims.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimants in OP (MV) No.511 of

2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein are the respondents 1 and 3 before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimants, on 03.02.2011, at about

10.00 p.m., while the deceased was standing on the extreme side of the NH-47 at Pudukad – Mupliyam junction, a goods carriage bearing registration No.TN-40/C-3399 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the deceased and as a result, the deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries on 12.02.2011 while undergoing treatment. The claimants who are the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹27,35,000/- which is limited to ₹15,00,000/-.

3. Though notice was served on the first and second respondents, the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle, they remained absent and were set ex parte before the tribunal. The third respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the insurance policy, denying the liability and disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A7 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, found that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the second respondent and the appellants/claimants were awarded a total compensation of ₹6,54,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization against the third respondent being the 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 insurer.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants claims enhancement mainly under the following heads:

I. Notional Income The learned counsel for the appellants submits that though an amount of ₹9,000/- was claimed as the monthly income of the deceased, who was a manual labourer, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹5,000/-. 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 monthly income of a coolie for an accident in 2011 is taken at ₹8,000/- and sought enhancement of the income. Accordingly, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (Supra) and in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, I find it appropriate to re-

fix the notional monthly income at ₹8,000/-.

II. Loss of dependency Since the age of the deceased was 57 years at the time of accident, following the judgment in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)], 10% of future prospects is to be added to the income now fixed, and it would be ₹8,800/- (8,000 x 10% + 8,000) for awarding compensation under the head, loss of dependency. Since there are three legal heirs, the deduction towards his personal and living expenses is 1/3 and the multiplier to be adopted is “9”. Hence, following the apex court judgments in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], the total compensation payable under the afore head is recalculated thus ₹6,33,600/- (8,800 x 12 x 9 x 2/3). The tribunal had granted an amount of ₹4,14,000/- under the said head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹2,19,600/- under the afore head.

III. Funeral expenses & loss of estate On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the tribunal had awarded an amount of ₹25,000/- & ₹1,00,000/- under the head funeral exp