Court modified compensation based on recalculated notional income and loss of dependency, adhering to judicial precedents.

JUDGMENT

The above appeal is filed by the appellant/3^rd respondent insurer challenging the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri, in OP (MV) No.247 of 2011. The Cross Objection is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the tribunal.

2. According to the claimants, on 13.10.2010, while the deceased was travelling on a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-51-A-2200 and when he reached at the place of accident, a bus bearing Reg.No. KL-10-P-101 driven by the 1^st respondent hit against the motorcycle, in which the deceased was travelling. Thereby he sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the same. The legal heirs of the deceased approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹20,25,000/-.

3. The respondents 1 and 2 being the driver and the registered owner of the offending vehicle, filed a joint written statement contending that the vehicle was insured with the 3^rd respondent and the accident occurred not due to the negligence of the 1^st respondent. The 3^rd respondent, insurer, filed a written statement admitting the insurance policy for the vehicle but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. Exts.A1 to A8 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record awarded a total compensation of ₹19,67,500/- rounded to ₹19,68,000/- with interest @9% per annum as compensation under various heads against the respondent insurer. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the 3^rd respondent, insurer has come up in appeal. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the cross objectors/ claimants have come up with the Cross Objection.

4. Heard the learned standing counsel for the appellant/insurance company and the learned Counsel for the Cross Objectors/claimants.

5. The learned counsel for the Cross Objectors/claimants and the learned Standing Counsel for the insurer disputed mainly under the following heads:

Notional income :- The learned counsel for the cross objectors/claimants submitted that though an amount of ₹10,000/- was claimed, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹5,500/- as the monthly notional 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 income of a Coolie, for an accident in 2010 is fixed as ₹7,500/- and sought for enhancement of income fixed. Considering the afore facts of the case, in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, I find it appropriate to re-fix the notional monthly income as ₹7,500/-.

Loss of dependency :- The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that the tribunal has deducted 1/6th towards personal and living expenses instead of 1/4, though the legal heirs were only six in numbers and relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662(SC)]. I find force in the argument. Since the legal heirs were six in numbers the deduction ought to have been 1/4th and not 1/6th. Similarly, it is submitted that the tribunal has added 50% of future prospects to the income instead of 40%. The deceased was not a permanent employee, whereas, he was only a worker in the Malabar marbles. Since the deceased was aged 34 years at the time of the accident, by adding 40% future prospects as per Pranay Sethi (supra) to the income now fixed, the amount will be ₹10,500/- for awarding compensation under the head loss of dependency. Since the notional income after adding future prospects is re- fixed as ₹10,500/-, following the judgments in Pranay Sethi (supra) and and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], the compensation payable under the head is re-calculated t