The court established enhanced compensation criteria for wrongful death claims, particularly regarding income determination and dependency calculations.

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the claimants in OP(MV) No.446 of 2009 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, N.Paravur, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimants was that on 17.09.2008, while the deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-17-B- 4159, a KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KL-15-3996 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle, whereby he sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The claimants, being the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹5,00,000/-.

3. Respondents 1 and 2, who are the owner/KSRTC and driver of the offending vehicle respectively, filed a joint statement, denying negligence on the part of the driver and disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Exts.A1 to A5 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 ₹5,01,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the first respondent KSRTC. 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 KSRTC.

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

5.1. Notional income - The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was a mason by profession and was earning ₹7,000/- per month, however, the tribunal has fixed the monthly income notionally only at ₹5,000/-. The learned counsel for the appellants further submits that even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236] , for an accident that occurred in 2008, the monthly income of a coolie is fixed at ₹6,500/- and seeks for an enhancement of the income fixed. Accordingly, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), I deem it appropriate to refix the monthly income of the deceased at ₹6,500/-.

5.2. Loss of dependency - Since the monthly income of the deceased is refixed at ₹6,500/-, compensation towards loss of dependency has to be recalculated. The deceased was 55 years old at the time of the accident and as per the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662(SC)], 10% future prospects can be added to the income now fixed. Thus, after adding 10% of the notional income towards future prospects, the income would be ₹7,150/- (6500 + 650). The learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the deceased left behind his wife and two children, and hence, while assessing compensation for loss of dependency, the income to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased is one-third; however, the tribunal deducted one-half of the income, which is per se illegal. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants and hold that the income to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased is one-third. The deceased was 55 years old at the time of the accident and thus, the multiplier to be adopted is ‘11’. Accordingly, applying the above standards and following the judgments in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], the appellants will be entitled to get a total compensation of ₹6,29,200/- (7150 x 12 x 11 x 2/3) towards loss of dependency. Hence, there will be an add