The court adjusted compensation due to inadequate prior assessment, enhancing the total to ₹10,69,800, ensuring just recompense based on legal precedents and expert testimony.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimants in OP (MV) No.1381 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimants, on 16.08.2005 at about 6.00 p.m., while the deceased was travelling in an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-13/F-3877 driven by the first respondent through Chittar – Vadasserikkara road, in a rash and negligent manner, it hit against a rock and turned down. As a result, the deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The claimants who are the wife, daughter and the mother of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹8,28,500/-.

3. Though notice was served on the first respondent, the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle, he remained absent and was set ex parte before the tribunal. The second respondent – insurer filed a written statement, admitting the insurance policy, disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A6 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, found that the accident was due to negligence on the part of the first respondent and the appellants/claimants was awarded a sum of ₹4,69,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization against the second respondent being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased have come up in appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned standing counsel for the respondent insurer.

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

I. Notional Income The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though an amount of ₹7,500/- was claimed as the notional monthly income of the deceased, who was a coolie, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹3,500/-. 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 monthly income of a coolie is taken at ₹5,000/- for an accident in 2005 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 ₹5,000/-.

II. Loss of dependency Since the deceased was aged 45 years at the time of accident, following the judgment in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)], 25% of the future prospects is to be added towards the monthly income now fixed and the income would be ₹6,250/- (5,000 x 25% + 5,000) for awarding compensation under the head, loss of dependency. Since there were five legal heirs for the deceased, the deduction towards his personal and living expenses is taken as 1/4; and the multiplier adopted is “14”. Hence, following the apex court judgments in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802] , the total compensation payable under the afore head is recalculated thus: ₹7,87,500/- (6,250 x 12 x 14 x 3/4). The tribunal had granted an amount of ₹4,41,000/- under the said head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹3,46,500/- under the head loss of dependency.

III. Funeral expenses On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the tribunal had granted only an amount of ₹4,000/- under the head funeral expenses. However, the claimants are entitled for an amount of ₹15,000/-, following the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra). Als