Just compensation in motor accident claims requires reevaluation of notional income and loss dependency while maintaining adherence to precedents limiting duplicative awards.

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the claimants in OP(MV) No.696 of

2018 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimants was that on 03.07.2018, while the deceased was riding a scooter bearing Reg.No.KL-63-C-7315, a bus bearing Reg.No.KL-73-A-9464 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the scooter, 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 ₹30,00,000/-.

3. Respondents 1 and 2, who were 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 deceased was a minor aged 17 years and was riding the scooter without a valid licence. Exts.A1 to A16 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 ₹15,87,800/-, which is rounded off to ₹15,88,000/-, as compensation under different heads with interest @ 8% 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 aged 17 years at the time of the accident and was earning ₹10,000/- per month through part-time employment, 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 2018, the monthly income of a coolie is fixed at ₹11,500/- 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 ₹11,500/-.

5.2. Loss of dependency - Since the monthly income of the deceased is refixed at ₹11,500/-, compensation towards loss of dependency has to be recalculated. The deceased was 17 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)], 40% future prospects can be added to the income now fixed. Thus, after adding 40% of the notional income towards future prospects, the amount would be ₹16,100/- (11500 + 4600). The deceased, being a bachelor, one-half of the income has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. 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 ₹17,38,800/- (16100 x 12 x 18 x 1/2) towards loss of dependency. The tribunal already awarded a compensation of ₹13,60,800/- under this head. Hence, there will be an additional amount of ₹3,78,000/- towards loss of dependency.

5.3. Loss of consor