The court held that notional income for dependency calculation should reflect the actual salary established, adjusted for correct tax liability and future prospects as per constitutional and judicial guidelines.

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the claimants in OP(MV) No.594 of

2015 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were respondents 1 & 2 before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimants was that on 06.12.2014, while the deceased was riding pillion on a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-01/BR- 5465, a bus bearing Reg.No.TN-74/N-1724 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit behind the motorcycle, 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 ₹35,00,000/-.

3. The second respondent/driver of the offending vehicle remained ex parte before the tribunal. The first respondent, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, filed written statements, disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed and denying negligence on the part of the second respondent/driver. It was also contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the motorcyclist. PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A12 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 ₹27,59,200/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the first and second respondents/owner and driver of the offending vehicle since there was no valid insurance policy. 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.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants challenges the impugned award mainly with regard to the fixation of notional monthly income of the deceased and the consequent determination of compensation for loss of dependency.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was a Lab Assistant in a government school and her monthly income was ₹21,391/-; however, the tribunal fixed the monthly income notionally after deducting 10% of the income towards income tax. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the annual income of the deceased was ₹2,56,692/- and thus, only an amount of ₹6,692/- was the taxable income, if any, since the income slab was ₹2,50,000/-

during the year 2014. The learned counsel for the appellants handed over to me a copy of the deductions to be made during the year 2014. On a perusal of the same, it is seen that 10% tax ought to have been deducted during the year 2014 if the annual income exceeds 2,50,000/-. In this case, at the time of the accident, the annual income of the deceased was ₹2,56,692/-; and thus, the income to be deducted towards tax was the minimal amount of ₹669/-. Since the income to be deducted towards income tax is the minimal amount of ₹669/-, I find it appropriate to refix the notional monthly income of the deceased at ₹21,391/-, which is rounded off to ₹21,390/-, which was the monthly salary of the deceased at the time of accident.

7. Consequent upon the refixation of the notional monthly income of the deceased at ₹21,390/-, the compensation payable under the head of loss of dependency is liable to be recalculated. The deceased was a 48-year-old government employee at the time of the accident and as per the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662(SC)], 30% future prospects can be added to the income now fixed. Thus, after adding 30% of the notional income towards futur