Qualified welders' income is relevant for compensation calculations post-accident; appeal courts may enhance tribunal awards based on statutory guidelines.

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the claimants in OP(MV) No.2195 of 2015 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondent herein was the third respondent before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimants was that on 24.11.2015, while the deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL- 61B/2712, a KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KL-15-/7635 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle, 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 ₹35,00,000/-.

3. Respondents 1 and 2, who were the owner and driver of the offending vehicle respectively, filed a written statement, alleging negligence on the part of the deceased. 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 deceased was not having a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. Exts.A1 to A14 & B1 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 ₹13,92,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the third respondent being the insurer. 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.

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 was a qualified welder and was earning ₹35,000/- per month, however, the tribunal has fixed the monthly income notionally only at ₹7,000/-. The appellants produced Ext.A5 certificate of competence before the tribunal to substantiate their contention that the deceased was a qualified welder. 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 2015, the monthly income of a coolie is fixed at ₹10,000/-. Considering the fact that the deceased was a qualified welder, I deem it appropriate to refix the monthly income of the deceased at ₹12,000/-.

5.2. Loss of dependency - Since the monthly income of the deceased is refixed at ₹12,000/-, compensation towards loss of dependency has to be recalculated. The deceased was 25 years old at the time of the accident; and as per the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662(SC)], after adding 40% of the notional income towards future prospects, the amount would be ₹16,800/- (12000 + 4800) for calculating loss of dependency. Accordingly, following the judgments in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], the appellants will be entitled to get a total compensation of ₹24,19,200/- (16800 x 12 x 18 x 2/3) towards loss of dependency. The tribunal has already awarded ₹13,10,400/-. Hence, there will be an additional amount of ₹11,08,800/- under this head.

5.3. Loss of consortium - The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the tribunal awarded only an amount of ₹40,000/- as compensation towards loss of consortium to the wife, whereas, the appellants 2 and 3, who are the parents of the deceased, are also entitled to get a compensati