The judgment reaffirms that compensation for accident victims must be just and reasonable, ensuring accurate assessment of income and dependency for legal heirs, thereby enhancing awarded damages.

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the claimants in OP(MV) No.2087 of 2016 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondent herein was the second respondent before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimants was that on 29.05.2016, while the deceased was walking along the side of a public road, a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-07-AH-2476 ridden by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, knocked her down, whereby she 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 ₹20,00,000/-.

3. The first respondent, who was the owner-cum-rider of the offending vehicle, remained ex parte before the tribunal. The second respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Exts.A1 to A10 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 rider of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of ₹5,45,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% 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 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 cook by profession and was earning ₹15,000/- per month, however, the tribunal has fixed the monthly income notionally only at ₹10,000/-. 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 2016, the monthly income of a coolie is fixed at ₹10,500/- and seeks for an enhancement of the income fixed. Accordingly, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), I deem it appropriate to refix the monthly income of the deceased at ₹10,500/-.

5.2. Damage to clothing - It is seen that the tribunal awarded no compensation towards damage to clothing. Thus, the appellants are awarded a compensation of ₹1,000/- under this head.

5.3. Loss of consortium/loss of love & affection - The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the tribunal has not awarded compensation towards loss of consortium; and the appellants, being seven in number, are entitled to get a compensation of ₹40,000/- each, totalling to ₹2,80,000/-. It is further submitted that as per the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), they are also entitled to get 10% enhancement in a span of three years from 2017. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. Accordingly, the appellants are awarded a compensation of ₹48,400/- each towards loss of consortium, totalling to ₹3,38,800/- (48400 x 7).

5.3.1. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer submits that the tribunal awarded ₹1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection, which is impermissible and runs against the mandate inPranay Sethi (supra). I find force in the submission of the learned Standing Counsel. Once compensation is awarded under the head of loss of consortium, no amount shall be awarded towards loss of love and affection as it amounts to duplication of compensation as held in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Somwati and others [2020 (5) KLT OnLine 1198 (SC). Therefore,