In fatal motor accident cases, the compensation must be calculated by applying future prospects to the deceased's profession-based notional income and providing adequate filial consortium to the surviving parents, ensuring the final amount is just, reasonable, and reflective of established judicial guidelines.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by claimants in O.P.(MV) No.328 of

2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the 2^nd, 3^rd and additional respondents 4 to 6 before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimants, on 12.11.2012, while the deceased was riding a motorcycle through a public road at Andhakaranazhi, a TATA Ace goods vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-4.N.421 driven by the first respondent, in a rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle. As a result, the deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the way to hospital. The claimants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹26,04,000/- which was limited to ₹25,00,000/-.

3. The first respondent died during the tribunal proceedings and the additional respondents 4 to 6, who are the legal heirs of the first respondent, were impleaded. The 1^st respondent/the driver, 2^nd respondent/owner of the offending vehicle and the additional respondents 4 to 6 remained absent and they were set ex-parte before the tribunal. The 3^rd respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy but contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself. Exts.A1 to A11 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a total compensation of ₹10,83,600/- with interest @9% per annum against the respondent insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimants 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 appellants claims enhancement mainly under the following heads :-

Notional income :- The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though an amount of ₹12,000/- was claimed as the income of the deceased, who was a mason, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹7,000/-. It is further submitted that, 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 2012, is fixed as ₹8,500/- and sought for enhancement of income. However, considering the fact that the deceased was a mason by profession, I find it appropriate to re-fix the income at ₹10,000/-. Since the deceased was aged 27 years at the time of the accident, as per National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662(SC)], by adding 40% future prospects to the income now fixed, the amount will be ₹14,000/- for awarding compensation under the head loss of dependency.

Loss of dependency :- Since the notional income after adding future prospects is re-fixed as ₹14,000/-, following the judgments in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], the compensation payable under the head loss of dependency is re-calculated thus as: (14000 x 12 x 17 x 1/2) ₹14,28,000/-. Since the tribunal has awarded an amount of ₹9,99,600/-, there will be an additional amount of ₹4,28,400/- under the head loss of dependency.

Loss of love and affection/ Loss of consortium :- The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹40,000/- towards the head loss of consortium, whereas the parents of the deceased were alive at the time of accident and both of them were entitled for consortium. I find force in the argument. Following the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), I find that they are entitled for an amount of ₹80,000/- (40,000 x 2) towards loss of filial consortium. Also following Pranay Sethi (supra), I find tha