The court highlighted that just compensation should reflect notional income, appropriate deductions for dependents, and adhere to established legal precedents in personal injury claims and compensation calculations.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimants in O.P (MV) No.2307 of

2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. The respondent herein was the 3^rd respondent before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimants, on 16.07.2016 at about 07.00 am, while the deceased was riding a scooter bearing reg. No. KL-32-J- 1506, a container lorry bearing registration No.KL-43-C-9063 driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner came from behind and hit the scooter. As a result of the accident the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the same day. The claimants, being the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹40,72,750/- limited to ₹25,00,000/-.

3. The first and second respondent/owner and driver of the offending vehicle remained ex parte before the tribunal. The 3^rd respondent/insurer filed a written statement admitting the validity of the policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed.

Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A10 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹14,11,600/- as compensation under different heads with interest @9% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs against the 3^rd respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimants, being 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 insurance company.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant claims enhancement mainly under the following heads :-

Notional income :- The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹12,000/- as the monthly income of the injured who was a house wife as well as a fish vendor.

On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236] , the income of a coolie for an accident in the year 2016 is fixed at ₹10,500/- per month and therefore the tribunal has reasonably fixed the income as ₹12,000/-. Considering the fact that she was a housewife as well as a fishvendor, I find that the income fixed by the tribunal is on the lower side. In order to award a just compensation, I find it is appropriate to refix the monthly income as₹ 13,000/-

Damage to clothing and articles : On a perusal of the award, it is seen that, though an amount of ₹25,000/- was claimed under the aforesaid head, the tribunal did not grant any compensation. Considering the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2016, I find it appropriate to award an amount of ₹2,000/-

under the said head.

Loss of consortium/loss of love and affection :- The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the tribunal has granted only an amount of ₹40,000/- towards loss of consortium. Following the judgment in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)], since the legal heirs are 4 in number, the claimants are entitled to get a total compensation of ₹1,60,000/- (40,000 x 4) under the head loss of consortium. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹1,20,000/- under the head loss of consortium.

The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that an amount of ₹1,50,000/- was awarded by the tribunal under the head loss of love and affection. In New India Assurance Compa