In motor accident claims, tribunals must determine notional income based on realistic standards for the deceased's occupation to serve the principle of just and reasonable compensation, ensuring all standard deductions and future prospect additions are applied correctly in accordance with established judicial guidelines.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimants in OP (MV) No.129 of

2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala, seeking enhancement of compensation. The respondent herein was the third respondent before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimants, on 06.01.2017 at about

07.15 a.m., while the deceased was riding a scooter bearing registration No.KL-37-C-271 through Vandiperiyar – Sathram public road, he was hit down by a jeep bearing registration No.KL-06/D-3063 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner and as a result, the deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The claimants who are the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹45,00,000/-.

3. Though notice was served on the first and second respondents, the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle respectively, they remained absent and were set ex parte before the tribunal. The third respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the insurance policy, disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A9 & Ext.B1 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, found that the accident was due to negligence on the part of the first respondent and the claimant was awarded a sum of ₹19,02,500/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization against the third respondent being the 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 claim enhancement mainly under the following heads:

I. Notional Income The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though an amount of ₹20,000/- was claimed as the notional monthly income of the deceased, who alleged to be an estate worker, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹10,000/-. The learned counsel further submitted that even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236], the notional monthly income of an ordinary worker for an accident in the year 2017 is fixed as ₹11,000/- and sought enhancement of the income. However, considering the fact that the deceased was an estate worker, and in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, I find it appropriate to re-fix the notional monthly income at ₹11,500/-.

II. Loss of dependency Since the deceased was aged above 40 years at the time of the accident, following the apex court decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)], 25% future prospects is to be added towards the income fixed. Accordingly, the monthly income for the purpose of awarding compensation under the head loss of dependency is re-fixed at ₹14,375/- (₹11,500 + 25% of ₹11,500). The deceased was aged 40 years and the multiplier to be adopted is 15 and since there were four legal heirs, the deduction towards his personal and living expenses is 1/4th. Hence, following the apex court judgments in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], the total compensation payable under the afore head is recalculated thus: ₹19,40,625/- (14,375 x 12 x 15 x 3/4). The tribunal had awarded an amount of ₹16,87,500/- under the said head. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to an additional amount of ₹2,53,125/- towards loss of dependency