The court held that compensation must accurately reflect the victim's income and future prospects, allowing an enhanced amount based on adjusted notional income and established legal principles.

JUDGMENT

The claimants in OP(MV) No.984/2015 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’] have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Appellants/claimants are the wife, minor children and mother of the victim who died in a motor vehicle accident.

2. On 26.09.2015 at about 9.30 a.m, while the victim, Ramakrishnan, was driving an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-08-AN-4299, a bus bearing registration No.KL-08-AH-8797, driven in a rash and negligent manner by the 1^st respondent, collided with the autorickshaw driven by the victim. In the said accident, the victim sustained grievous injuries and he succumbed to the injuries on the same day. Accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the R1, who was the driver of the bus. R2 is the RC owner and R3 is the insurer of the offending bus. R3 insurance company, admitted the existence of a valid policy.

3. By the impugned award, the Tribunal awarded a sum of ₹13,03,700/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Alleging that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meager and inadequate, claimants have come in appeal seeking enhanced compensation.

4. Heard both sides. Records perused.

5. There is no dispute over the fact that the victim Ramakrishanan met with a motor vehicle accident on 26.09.2015. It is not in dispute that the bus bearing registration No.KL-08-AH-8797 driven by R1 hit on the autorickshaw driven by the victim and victim succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident. There is no challenge over the fact that accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus by R1.

6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meager; that the notional income taken by the Tribunal for assessing the compensation is very low; that the compensation awarded under all heads are on a lower side and it is not a just and reasonable compensation as mandated by law.

7. Let us see whether the appellants/claimants are entitled to any enhanced compensation and if so, what is the quantum.

8. According to the appellants/claimants, deceased was a fish vendor earning ₹20,000/- per month and he was the breadwinner of the family.

9. The learned Tribunal took notional income as ₹7,000/- per month on the ground that no evidence was let in to prove the nature of the occupation of the deceased and to prove the monthly income of the deceased.

10. It is to be noted that even in the F.I.R. and the charge sheet qua the accident the occupation of the deceased has been stated as fish vendor.

11. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contended that the deceased was earning ₹20,000/- per month and the Tribunal erred in taking the notional income as ₹7,000/- per month. Further, it was contended that if one goes by the Minimum Wages Act , 2017, his daily wage can be taken as ₹810/- per day.

12. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the insurance company/R3 contended that the accident occurred in the year 2015 and therefore the wage under the Minimum Wages Act , 2017, cannot be taken.

13. Having regard to the occupation of the deceased this Court is of the view that monthly income of ₹15,000/- can be taken as the notional income of the deceased for the purpose of assessing compensation.

14. The victim was aged 48 years at the time of accident.

Therefore, 25% of the income is to be added towards future prospects ( National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] . If 25% is thus added to the notional monthly income of ₹15,000/-, the income