In motor accident claims, notional income should be determined based on credible documentary evidence, with future prospects added according to established judicial precedents. Penal interest awarded by a tribunal, if beyond legal sustainability, must be set aside to ensure the awarded compensation is just and reasonable.

JUDGMENT

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

710/2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondent herein was the 2^nd respondent before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimants, on 30.10.2016 at about

7.30 p.m., while the deceased was riding a motorcycle through Menonpara-Athikkode public road, another motorcycle bearing Reg.No.TN-56Y-463 driven by the first respondent, in a rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle. As a result, the deceased sustained serious injuries and he succumbed to the injuries on the way to hospital. The claimants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming compensation.

3. The 1^st respondent/the owner-cum-rider of the offending vehicle filed a written statement contending that there was no negligence on his side. The 2^nd respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy. PW1 was examined. Exts.A1 to A20 and Ext.X1 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a total compensation of ₹20,76,000/- with interest @7.5% per annum against the second respondent insurer; and in default of payment as above, penal interest @ 9% per annum was also awarded. 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 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 ₹22,000/- was claimed as the income of the deceased, the tribunal has fixed the income as ₹12,000/- only. The learned counsel for the claimants relied on the deposition of PW1, who had given employment for the deceased on contract basis for the labour contract, as well as Ext.A19 pay slips and Ext.A20 account statement, and submitted that the deceased was receiving an amount of ₹22,000/- as his monthly income. The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company, however, submitted that the income of the deceased was not fixed and was varied from month to month. On a perusal of Exts.A19 and A20, it is seen that the salary credited to the account of the deceased during the months from April to October, 2016 was ₹18,520/- in April, ₹17,010/- in June, ₹15,468/- in July, ₹16,361/- in August, ₹14,393/- in September and ₹17,330/- in October. On a perusal of the statement of accounts also, it is seen that there was no fixed salary for the deceased. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants, however, submitted that deductions towards provident fund were made before the salary was credited to the account. There is no case that the deceased was drawing any other income at the time of the accident. From the document produced and evidence adduced there is nothing on record to show that the deceased was having an amount of ₹22,000/- as his monthly income. Hence, I find that the income fixed by the tribunal is on the higher side and I find it appropriate to re-fix the income as ₹18,000/-. Since the deceased was aged 42 at the time of the accident, as per National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662(SC)], by adding 25%

future prospects to the income now fixed, the income will be ₹22,500/- for the purpose of awarding compensation towards loss of dependency.

Loss of dependency :- Since the notional income after adding future prospects is re-fixed as ₹22,500/-, following the ju