The court clarified that the notional income for compensation needs to reflect market standards and the appropriate multiplier must be applied, particularly for married deceased with dependents.

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the claimants in OP(MV) No.775 of 2016 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimants was that on 08.03.2016, while the deceased was walking through the eastern side of Aluva - Angamaly NH, a car bearing Reg.No.KL-10/AD-3005 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit down him, 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 ₹15,00,000/-.

3. Respondents 1 and 2, who are the driver and owner of the offending vehicle respectively, remained ex parte before the tribunal. The third respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. It was also contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A14 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 ₹7,18,863/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the third respondent being the insurer with right of recovery against respondents 1 & 2, who were the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, finding that the first respondent/driver was not having a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. 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 insurer. Though notice was served on respondents 1 and 2, they have not chosen to appear.

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, who was a businessman aged 65 years old at the time of the accident, was earning ₹12,000/- per month, however, the tribunal has fixed the monthly income notionally only at ₹9,000/-. 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 2016, the monthly income of a coolie is fixed at ₹10,500/- and seeks for an enhancement of the income fixed. Accordingly, in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), I deem it appropriate to refix the monthly income of the deceased at ₹10,500/-.

5.2. Loss of dependency - Since the monthly income of the deceased is refixed at ₹10,500/-, compensation towards loss of dependency has to be recalculated. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was 65 years old at the time of the accident and as per the judgment in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], the multiplier to be adopted is “7”, whereas the tribunal wrongly adopted “5”. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants and adopt “7” as the multiplier for assessing compensation.

5.2.1. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was married and had wife and four children, however, the tribunal deducted one-half of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased, which