Court modified the compensation for loss of dependency and other heads, ruling the need for just and reasonable compensation in fatal accident cases, based on evaluation of income and applicable legal precedents.

JUDGMENT

Since these two appeals arise from the very same award dated

10.09.2014 in O.P.(MV) No.2250 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam, these appeals are heard together and being disposed of by this judgment. M.A.C.A.No.759 of 2015 is filed by the claimants in the O.P seeking enhancement of compensation, whereas MACA No.365 of 2016 is filed by the respondents 3 & 4 in the O.P challenging quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal.

2. The facts of the case are as follows: According to the claimants, on 19.07.2011 at about 11.40 p.m., the deceased sustained fatal injuries as a result of being hit by the offending car bearing Registration No. KL-7/AC 5291, which was driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner. As a result of the accident, the deceased had sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The legal heirs of the claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹6,00,000/-.

3. The 1^st respondent is the owner, 2^nd respondent is the driver, 3^rd respondent is the insurer and the additional 4th respondent is the transferee owner of the offending vehicle. The 1^st respondent remained ex parte before the tribunal. The 2^nd respondent of the offending vehicle filed a written statement contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased and admitted that he was driving the vehicle and that he was duly licensed at the time of accident. The 3^rd respondent/insurer of the offending vehicle filed a written statement admitting the policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. The additional 4^th respondent/transferee owner filed a written statement contending that the vehicle was having insurance coverage with the 3^rd respondent at the time of accident. Before the tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A7 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹7,01,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest @9% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs against the 3^rd respondent being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum, the claimants have come up in appeal and challenging the quantum of compensation awarded, the State has filed the appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants and the learned Government Pleader.

Notional income :- The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that though an amount of ₹5,000/- was claimed as the income, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹4,000/- as the income of the deceased, who was a driver by profession. The learned counsel for the claimants further submitted that, as per 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 the year 2011 is fixed at ₹8,000/- per month and sought for enhancement of fixation of monthly income. In order to award just and reasonable compensation, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), I find it appropriate to fix the income of the deceased as ₹8,000/-.

Compensation for loss of dependency :- Since the deceased was 45 years at the time of the accident and was not a permanent employee, going by the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)], the claimants are entitled to add 25% of the income fixed towards future prospects. Since the notional income is fixed at ₹8,000/-, by adding 25% towards future prospects, the income is recalculated as ₹10,000/- for the purpose of awarding compensation under the head loss of dependency. The learned counsel for the claimants further submitted that the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier as 13 instead of 14. Since the