The court recalibrated the deceased's monthly income for compensation, underscoring the importance of established precedents on enhancement in motor vehicle accident claims.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimants in OP (MV) No.414 of

2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vatakara, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimants, on 24.10.2015, at about

02.45 p.m., while the deceased after getting down from a goods vehicle was trying to cross the road, a car bearing registration No.KL-11-AY-8000 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the goods vehicle and it fell on the deceased and thereby sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment. The claimants who were the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹36,48,378/-

which is limited to ₹35,00,000/-.

3. The first, second and third respondents were the owner, driver and the insurer of the offending vehicle respectively. Respondents 1 and 2 filed a joint written statement admitting the accident but denying the negligence on the part of the second respondent. The third respondent filed a written statement, admitting the insurance policy, disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A6 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, found that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the second respondent and the appellants/claimants were awarded a total compensation of ₹11,25,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization against the respondent insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, have come up in appeal.

4. 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 mainly under the following heads:

I. Notional Income The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though an amount of ₹17,000/- was claimed as the monthly income of the deceased, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹7,300/-, relying on Ext.A6 salary certificate. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236] , the monthly income of an ordinary worker for an accident in 2015 is taken as ₹10,000/- and sought enhancement of the income. Accordingly, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (Supra) and in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, I find it appropriate to re-fix the notional monthly income at ₹10,000/-.

II. Loss of consortium/loss of love and affection The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the tribunal had granted an amount of ₹40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium. It is further submitted that the legal heirs were two in number and following the apex court judgment in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)], the appellants are entitled for a total amount of ₹80,000/- under the head loss of consortium. However, the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the tribunal had awarded an amount of ₹1,00,000/- under the head loss of love and affection, which is impermissible and runs against the mandate in Pranay Sethi (supra). Therefore, I deem it appropriate to adjust the compensation granted towards loss of love and affection with loss of consortium and thus, after adjustment there will be a deduction of ₹60,000/- under the said head.

III. Loss of dependency Since the age of the deceased was 48 years at the time of accident, following the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), by adding 25% futur