The court determined the proper calculation of compensation in motor accident cases while adhering to precedents on income assessment and dependency losses.

JUDGMENT

(Dated this the 09^th day of February, 2026)

The appellants are the petitioners in O.P.(M.V.) No.793 of

2014 on the files of the Additional District & Sessions Judge IV and MACT, Pathanamthitta. Appellants are children and husband of deceased Sreelatha K. Varma, who died in a motor accident at about 3.45 p.m. on 10.5.2014. The deceased was travelling in a bus bearing registration No.KL-03- P-1552 through Thiruvalla- Mavelikkara route and when the bus reached near companypadi, the bus overturned. Resultantly, the deceased sustained serious injuries and was taken to Pushpagiri medical college hospital, Thiruvalla, but she succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital.

2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte and the 3^rd respondent admitted the insurance policy of the offending vehicle, but contended that the vehicle insured has violated the policy conditions and hence, the insurer is not liable to compensate the appellants. They further contended that the amount claimed is too exorbitant.

3. The Tribunal, relying on Exts.A1 to A8, found that the 2^nd respondent, being the owner of the bus, is liable to compensate to the petitioners and since the offending vehicle was insured with the 3^rd respondent, the insurer is liable to indemnify the 2^nd respondent by paying compensation to the petitioners. The tribunal awarded a total compensation of ₹15,53,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 1.8.2014 till realisation. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, this appeal is filed by the petitioners.

4. Heard.

5. The main contention raised by the counsel for the appellants is that the deceased was a data entry operator aged 40 years at the time of accident. She was getting a monthly income of ₹21,500/-, but no evidence was adduced by the appellants to prove the income of the deceased. The Tribunal assessed the monthly income as ₹8,000/-. Relying on the decision reported in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011) 13 SCC 236] , the notional income of a coolie who met with an accident in the year 2014 can be taken as ₹9,500/- and since she was between the age group of 40-50 and self employed, 25% can be taken as increase of future prospects. Therefore, the monthly income can be fixed as ₹9500 + 25% = 11,875/-. The multiplier to be adopted is ‘15’, which the Tribunal took wrongly as ‘16’. Considering the number of dependants, 1/4 is to be deducted towards her personal expenses. Thus, the loss of dependency can be recalculated as ₹11,875x15x12x3/4 = ₹16,03,125/-.

6. Under the head loss of consortium, the Tribunal has awarded ₹40,000/-. As per the decision reported in Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Nanu Ram Allias Chuhru Ram & Others [(2018) 18 SCC 130] , the dependents are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium. They are also entitled to 10% increase every three years as per the decision reported in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (16) SCC 680], and thus, the 10% increase would come to Rs.1,76,000/- (40,000 x 4 + 10%).

7. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.40,000/-

towards loss of love and affection. When loss of consortium is awarded, loss of love and affection cannot be awarded over and above the loss of consortium. Hence, the amount of Rs.40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head of loss of love and affection is set aside.

8. Compensation awarded under all other heads found to be just and reasonable and hence, no interference is warranted with the same.

Accordingly, the following enhancements/deductions are made to the award passed by the Tribunal:

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the appellants are entitled to for an amount o