The court recalculated compensation based on established legal precedents, emphasizing enhanced notional income and loss of dependency calculations.

JUDGMENT

[MACA No.763/2016, C.O. No. 107/2016]

This appeal is filed by the 3rd respondent insurance company in O.P.(MV) No.416 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vadakara, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. The respondents herein are the respondents 1 and 2 and claimants before the tribunal. The Cross Objection No.107 of 2016 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: On 12.09.2011, while the deceased was travelling in a jeep bearing registration No.KL-13-D-3045, the second respondent applied the brakes suddenly in a rash and negligent manner. As a result, the deceased was thrown out onto the road, hit his head against an electric post, sustained grievous injuries, and succumbed to the same on the very same day. The claimants who are the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹12,00,000/.

3. Though notice was served on the first and second respondents, the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle respectively, they remained absent and were set ex parte before the tribunal. The third respondent-insurer filed a written statement admitting the insurance policy, disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. They contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the second respondent who was driving the jeep without a valid driving licence. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A6 and Exts.B1 and B2 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 awarded a sum of ₹9,80,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs against the third respondent insurer and further recover the same from the first respondent owner due to violation of policy condition. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded, the 3^rd respondent - insurance company and the claimants have approached this court with the above appeal and cross objection respectively.

4. Heard the learned standing counsel for the appellant/insurance company and the learned counsel for the cross objectors/claimants. Though notice was served on the first respondent, they chose not to appear before this court.

5. The learned standing counsel for the appellant/insurance company as well as the learned counsel for the cross objectors/claimants mainly disputed the quantum of compensation under the following heads:

I. Notional income:

The learned counsel for the cross objectors submitted that though an amount of ₹5,000/- was claimed as the monthly income of the deceased, alleged to be a tuition teacher at the Madarassa, the tribunal had taken ₹30,000/- as the annual monthly income. 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 notional monthly income of a coolie is taken as ₹8,000/- for an accident of the year 2011 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 earnings/dependency Since the deceased was aged 17 years at the time of accident, following the judgment in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)], 40% of the future prospects is to be added towards the monthly income now fixed and the income would be ₹11,200/- (8,000 x 40% + 8,000) for awarding compensation under the head, loss of earnings/dependency. Si