Compensation awarded must align with established case law, ensuring fair calculations for loss of dependency and applicable deductions.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the 3rd respondent/insurer in OP (MV) No.677 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. The respondents herein were the claimants and respondents 4 & 5 before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimants, on 21.11.2009 at about 8.15 a.m., while the deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-10F-4321, a lorry bearing registration No.KL-54-6074, driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the motorcycle, and as a result, the deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The claimants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹7,00,000/-.

3. Though notice was served on respondent Nos. 2, 4 & 5, the owner and the dependents of the deceased, respectively, they remained absent and were set ex parte before the tribunal. The first respondent, the driver of the offending vehicle, filed a written statement denying the negligence attributed on the part of him. The third respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the insurance policy, disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A8 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, found that the accident was due to negligence on the part of the first respondent, and the claimants were awarded a sum of ₹8,23,550/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization against the third respondent insurer. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the insurer has come up in appeal.

4. Heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant insurer and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants.

5. The learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant–insurer challenges the enhancement mainly under the following heads: I. Notional income The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that the tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at ₹13,396/-, taking into consideration his monthly pension of ₹6,264/- and by adding 50% towards dearness allowance, thereby fixing the pension amount at ₹9,396/-. The learned counsel for the claimants, on the other hand, contended that the deceased was earning at least ₹4,000/- per month from agricultural activities over and above the pension amount and the tribunal had rightly fixed the income.

On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the addition of

50% dearness allowance to the pension amount is not sustainable. However, going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [ 2011 (13) SCC 236 ], wherein the notional income of a coolie for an accident of the year 2009 was fixed at ₹7,000/- per month, the same can be adopted in the present case. Considering that the deceased was aged 67 years, his income could reasonably be assessed on that basis.

Further, half of the pension amount, which was deducted upon the death of the deceased, can be added to the income. Accordingly, 50% of ₹6,264/-, which comes to ₹3,132/-, is added to the notional income. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased is fixed at ₹10,132/- (₹7,000 + ₹3,132).

II. Loss of dependency The learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/insurer submitted that, since the wife alone is the legal heir, the deduction towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased ought to be one-half and not one- third. The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that since the deceased was a married person, the deduction towards personal expenses is