JUDGMENT : Easwaran S., J. The above appeal is filed by the claimant seeking for enhancement of the compensation granted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur in OP(MV) No.761 of 2016 and also aggrieved by the findings of the Tribunal that the accident was caused due to the contributory negligence of the claimant leading to deduction of 50% of the amount awarded as compensation. 2. Since the appellant died during the pendency of the appeal, his legal heirs have impleaded themselves in the appeal. The accident in question took place on 17.11.2014 at 12.15 PM while the claimant was driving a Tipper Lorry bearing Reg No.KL-46/D-4220 through Thrissur – Punnamparambu public road and when reached at Panambilli a Bus bearing Reg. No.KL-8/AS-36 driven by the 1st respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the lorry. The passenger in the Bus also filed OP(MV) No.1543 of 2015 and both these cases were jointly tried together. On behalf of the claimant, Exts.A1 to A18 were marked and on behalf of the respondents, Exts. B1 to B6 were marked. The Insurance Company raised certain objections with regard to the accident stating that there was contributory negligence on the part of the claimant in OP(MV) No.761 of 2016. Exts.A7 to A9 revealed that the claimant sustained the following injuries; “Blunt injury abdomen, Extensive mescutric tear with Devascularization and hamoperitonium. Congested segment of intestine with hemorrhage. He was admitted to Aswini Hospital on 17.11.2014 and had undergone multiple surgeries. Ext.A7 shows that on 08.12.2014 he was admitted to Aswini Hospital again with intra abdominal collection with inflammatory massithick pus and laparotomy was done. He was discharged on 16.12.2014. After surgery he has developed extra addanus fischure. For the treatment of the same he was admitted to Aster Medicity Hospital, Kochi on 12.05.2015. Exploratory laprotomy with restriction of fissure was done and discharged on 15.08.2015. Thereafter, he has availed inpatient treatment from 21.05.2015 to 29.05.2015, 18.10.2015 to 13.10.2015, 07.04.2015 to 20.11.2015 etc. Medical records produced by the petitioner revealed the inpatient treatment for 134 days.” 3. Though the claimant claimed that Rs.20,000/- was his monthly income, no evidence was produced and hence the Tribunal fixed Rs.9,500/- per month as notional income. On various heads, the tribunal granted the following Compensation : Sl. No. Head of claim Amount claimed (in Rupees) Amount awarded (in Rupees) 1. Though the claimant claimed that Rs.20,000/- was his monthly income, no evidence was produced and hence the Tribunal fixed Rs.9,500/- per month as notional income. On various heads, the tribunal granted the following Compensation : Sl. No. Head of claim Amount claimed (in Rupees) Amount awarded (in Rupees) 1. Loss of earning (Total) 1,50,000/- 1,14,000/- 2. Future Loss of earning next 1 year 3,60,000/- --- 3. Medical expenses 25,00,000/- 13,79,325/- 4. Bystander expenses 2,00,000/- 40,200/- 5. Transportation expenses 50,000/- 20,000/- 6. Extra nourishment 1,00,000/- 15,000/- 7. Damage to clothing etc.. 5,000/- 1,000/- 8. Personal Attendants 3,00,000/- 9. Pain and sufferings 10,00,000/- 1,50,000/- 10. Compensation for continuing or permanent disability 45,00,000/- 8,89,200/- 11. Compensation for the loss of earning power 5,00,000/- 2,00,000/- 12. Compensation for disfigurement 2,00,000/- 13. Loss of amenities and enjoyment of life 10,00,000/- 1,00,000/- 14. Compensation for happiness of marriage life 20,00,000/- --- 15. Compensation for shortened expectancy of life 2,00,000/- 16. Compensation for loss of future treatment 2,00,000/- 50,000/- 17. Personal assistance 2,00,000/- 50,000/- Total Claim limits to 1,34,65,000/- 30,08,725/- 4. Since contributory negligence on the part of the claimant was found, 50% of the amount was directed to be deducted from the total compensation and thus Rs.15,04,363/- was fixed as the total compensation payable. 5. Heard Sri. A. Mohammed Savad, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri. Mini M.R., the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company. 6. Following questions are required to be answered by this Court : (1) Whether fixing of contributory negligence on the claimant is correct or not? (2) Whether notional income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.9,500/- is correct or not 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that fixing 50% contributory negligence on the side of the deceased claimant was not proper at all. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court – I, Thrissur in C.C. No. 3531 of 2015 dated 31.12.2021, wherein the deceased claimant was admitted of the charges leveled against him under Sections 279 and 337 of erstwhile Indian Penal Code, 1860. The judgment passed in C.C.No.3531 of 2015 is produced on record as Annexure - A1 along with IA No.2 of 2023. Therefore, it is contended that the claimant having been acquitted of the offences leveled against him, the findings of the Court regarding the contributory negligence and fixing the same as 50% cannot be accepted. The judgment passed in C.C.No.3531 of 2015 is produced on record as Annexure - A1 along with IA No.2 of 2023. Therefore, it is contended that the claimant having been acquitted of the offences leveled against him, the findings of the Court regarding the contributory negligence and fixing the same as 50% cannot be accepted. The learned counsel further pointed out that going by the judgment of Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. ( 2011 (13) SCC 236 ), the notional income should have been fixed at Rs.10,500/- per month. Similarly, the Tribunal also erred in fixing the multiplier as 15 instead of 16. On other heads also the compensation awarded is meager and requires enhancement. 8. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company pointed out that the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is just and fair and no interference is called for. As far as the contributory negligence is concerned, according to the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, the finding of the criminal court does not have any bearing on the findings rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Division Bench in K.P. Mohankumar Vs. Kuniyel Ibrahim and Another [2016 ICO 3093]. 9. I have considered the rival submissions raised across the Bar. 10. It is unfortunate that the appellant who was aged 34 at the time of the accident during the pendency of the appeal succumbed to the various ailments and ultimately died. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the immediate aftermath of the accident resulted in the removal of the large intestine of the claimant which had a severe impact on his health as well as his earning capacity, which ultimately was the cause of his death. Be that as it may, fact remains that the appellant succumbed to the injuries. 11. The perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal shows that contributory negligence was fixed against the deceased claimant on the basis of Ext.A5 final report alone. It is true that the parties did not lead contrary evidence before the Tribunal. However, it is pertinent to note that after trial, the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court – I, Thrissur, in C.C. No.3531 of 2015 acquitted the claimant of the charges leveled against him. It is true that the parties did not lead contrary evidence before the Tribunal. However, it is pertinent to note that after trial, the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court – I, Thrissur, in C.C. No.3531 of 2015 acquitted the claimant of the charges leveled against him. Therefore, the question would be whether this Court can take notice of the said acquittal while deciding the sustainability of the award. 12. It is true that the decision of the criminal court does not have a bearing on the findings rendered by the Tribunal. But the said principles apply only in cases where the acquittal in criminal cases is pressed into service for avoiding the liability of tort. It is now settled that the degree of proof required to be advanced for proving negligence in criminal law is more than what is required in civil action. However, in a case where the Tribunal while awarding compensation to the claimant relied on a final report in criminal proceedings which ended in acquittal, the aforementioned principle may not apply. In National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Chamundeswari [ 2021(5) KLT 724 (SC)], the Hon’ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the question as to the evidentiary value of the FIR and other documents to prove the contributory negligence and held that only if evidence available with the Tribunal runs contrary to the FIR, then the above FIR has to be looked into. No strait jacket formula can be applied. In this context, it is pertinent to note that apart from FIR and final report, no evidence was available before the Tribunal and the Tribunal had relied on Ext.A5 final report for the purpose of fastening the contributory negligence of 50% on the side of the claimant. 13. Now, coming to the decision relied on by the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance company, this Court fails to comprehend how the same supports the Insurance Company. In K.P. Mohankumar (supra), the Division Bench was called upon to consider the veracity of the findings in the final report once the same has been put to trial and a judgment rendered. In K.P. Mohankumar (supra), the Division Bench was called upon to consider the veracity of the findings in the final report once the same has been put to trial and a judgment rendered. In fact, a close reading of the judgment of the Division Bench shows that once the judgment of the criminal court acquitting the accused is produced before the Tribunal, then it cannot be taken that the finding in a charge sheet will continue to be a sufficient prima facie evidence ignoring the judgment. In fact, in the considered view of this Court, the decision of the Division Bench supports the appellants rather than the Insurance Company. 14. The trauma of a motor accident is unexplained. In fact, it is quite painful to notice that the deceased claimant had to undergo untold misery due to the accident. It is true that monetary solace may not be the true compensation for the family who lost their sole earning member due to the accident. But however, when this Court is called upon to decide the just and fair compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, this Court cannot close its eyes to the penury of the family of the claimant who died during the pendency of the appeal. Perhaps the compensation to be awarded in this appeal may be only solace to the legal heirs. Though loss of life cannot be compensated in terms of money, in given situation where the compensation is being worked out, it may appear inhumane to deny awarding of compensation and still deny the full benefit on the ground of contributory negligence. However, in the realm of Law of Tort, no doubt contributory negligence plays a pivotal role. However, the principles of contributory negligence cannot be applied in all circumstances. The reasonable care required to be taken by a claimant in such a situation can be only a guiding factor in determining the contributory negligence. It cannot be applied as a thumb rule in all situations. 15. As stated above, the Tribunal relied on the final report, Ext.A5, to conclude that there is contributory negligence. However, the subsequent event, i.e. the acquittal in the criminal case, certainly would have a bearing on the outcome of the appeal. This Court cannot be intransigent when the judgment of the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-1 Thrissur is pressed into service. As stated above, the Tribunal relied on the final report, Ext.A5, to conclude that there is contributory negligence. However, the subsequent event, i.e. the acquittal in the criminal case, certainly would have a bearing on the outcome of the appeal. This Court cannot be intransigent when the judgment of the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-1 Thrissur is pressed into service. A perusal of the judgment in CC No.3531 of 2015 shows that the prosecution was not successful in proving the charges leveled against the accused/claimant and thus he was acquitted of the offence under Section 279 read with Section 337 of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code, 1860. 16. It is further contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company that once the judgment is rendered by the criminal court, the same ought to have been produced before the Tribunal in rebuttal evidence and hence the case requires to be remanded for that purpose. The said argument at first blush may appear appealing. However, this Court is not prepared to remand the case back to the Tribunal and thereby relegating the legal heirs of the deceased claimant to undergo the ordeal of trial once again. It is also nobody’s case that the judgment of the criminal court has been questioned in appeal before the appellate court. That be so, the same has become final. Therefore, in a given case, if the final report was finally put to test in a properly constituted criminal proceedings which ended in acquittal, the appellate court can certainly take notice of the judgment rendered by the criminal court and take an appropriate decision. In view of the above, it has to be held that once the criminal court acquits the claimant of an offence under Section 279 of IPC, the acquittal will have a bearing on the finding of contributory negligence attributed towards the claimant and the substratum of the findings of the Tribunal gets eroded thereby entitling the claimant for full benefit of the compensation. 17. Coming to the question of notional income of the deceased claimant is concerned, the learned counsel for appellant relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. ( 2011 (13) SCC 236 ) to contend that the notional income should have been fixed at Rs.10,500/- per month. 17. Coming to the question of notional income of the deceased claimant is concerned, the learned counsel for appellant relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. ( 2011 (13) SCC 236 ) to contend that the notional income should have been fixed at Rs.10,500/- per month. Still further, according to the learned counsel, the Tribunal also erred in fixing the multiplier as 15 instead of 16. 18. Though the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa (Supra), this Court is of the considered view that the claimant’s notional income is liable to be fixed not in terms of the judgment in Ramachandrappa (Supra). It is pertinent to note, the claimant is a driver. While Ramachandrappa (supra) dealt with fixation of notional income while dealing with a motor accident claim, in so far as case of a claimant who is a driver is concerned, the Supreme Court in Manusha Sreekumar and others Vs. United Insurance Co Ltd. [2022 SCC Online SC 1441] took a more beneficial view applying the notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 to conclude that the notional income should be fixed at Rs.15,600/-. Therefore, in cases where the question of fixing of notional income of a driver arises, the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Manusha Sreekumar (supra) have to be followed instead of the principles laid down in Ramachandrappa (supra). Accordingly, the notional income fixed at Rs.9,500/- by the Tribunal is set aside and notional income is fixed at Rs.15,600/-. The claimant is also entitled to get 40% future prospects added to the income. Since the claimant was aged 34 at the time of the accident, i.e. 17.11.2014, multiplier 16 to be taken instead of 15 and, accordingly, under these two heads, the award of the Tribunal requires modification. 19. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur in OP(MV) No. 761 of 2016 finding that 50% of the contributory negligence is attributable to the claimant is hereby set aside. The claim is liable to be enhanced as follows:- Sl No. Head of claim Amount claimed (in Rupees) Amount awarded (in Rupees) Enhanced by this Court 1. Loss of earning (Total) 1,50,000/- 1,14,000/- 15,600 x12 = 1,87,200- 1,14,000 = 73,200/- 2. The claim is liable to be enhanced as follows:- Sl No. Head of claim Amount claimed (in Rupees) Amount awarded (in Rupees) Enhanced by this Court 1. Loss of earning (Total) 1,50,000/- 1,14,000/- 15,600 x12 = 1,87,200- 1,14,000 = 73,200/- 2. Future Loss of earning next 1 year 3,60,000/- --- 3. Medical expenses 25,00,000/- 13,79,325/- 4. Bystander expenses 2,00,000/- 40,200/- 26,800/- 5. Transportation expenses 50,000/- 20,000/- 6. Extra nourishment 1,00,000/- 15,000/- 30,000/- 7. Damage to clothing etc.. 5,000/- 1,000/- 8. Personal Attendants 3,00,000/- 50,000/- 9. Pain and sufferings 10,00,000/- 1,50,000/- 2,00,000/- 10. Compensation for continuing or permanent disability 45,00,000/- 8,89,200/- 7,88,112/- (21840x12x16x 40/100) = 16,77,312-8,89,200 = 8,89,200 11. Compensation for the loss of earning power 5,00,000/- 2,00,000/- 1,00,000/- 12. Compensation for disfigurement 2,00,000/- 13. Loss of amenities and enjoyment of life 10,00,000/- 1,00,000/- 1,50,000/- 14. Compensation for happiness of marriage life 20,00,000/- --- 15. Compensation for shortened expectancy of life 2,00,000/- 16. Compensation for loss of future treatment 2,00,000/- 50,000/- 1,00,000 17. Personal assistance 2,00,000/- 50,000/- Total Claim limits to 1,34,65,000/- 30,08,725/- 15,18,112 20. The appellants/claimants are entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.15,18,112/- (Rupees Fifteen lakhs Eighteen thousand One hundred and Twelve only). Since this Court has set aside the finding of the Tribunal fixing 50% of the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased claimant, it is declared that the additional appellants will also be entitled to Rs.15,04,363/-. Hence, a total sum of Rs.30,22,475/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Twenty Two Thousand Four Hundred and Seventy Five Only) towards the compensation. The additional appellants are also entitled for interest at 9% per annum from 05.04.2016 till the date of realization with proportionate costs on the enhanced compensation. The Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation together with interest and proportionate costs within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 21. Before parting with the case, this Court will have to deal with the issue of apportionment of the amount awarded as compensation, in view of the fact that during the pendency of the appeal the appellant/claimant died and his father, mother and two minor children are impleaded in the appeal. It may be noticed that the 4th respondent is the wife of the deceased claimant and she is also entitled to the share in the compensation amount along with the minor children, namely additional 4th and 5th appellants. It may be noticed that the 4th respondent is the wife of the deceased claimant and she is also entitled to the share in the compensation amount along with the minor children, namely additional 4th and 5th appellants. Though the parties are governed by Hindu Law of Succession, in so far as the claim for compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is concerned, law of succession may not apply and the share has to be determined based on dependency. It is pertinent to note that the term “legal representative” is not defined under the Act. However, there cannot be any doubt on the proposition that the dependent has to be a legal representative in order to maintain the claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. No doubt, the Tribunal had no occasion to consider this issue and a finding on this issue has been necessitated in view of the subsequent development during the pendency of the appeal. While considering the question of dependency of the additional appellants and the 4th respondent wife of the deceased claimant, certainly prominence has to be given to the wife and two minor children. The father and mother of the deceased claimant are also entitled to the share in the compensation but not in equal status with additional appellants 3 to 5 and the 4th respondent. Hence, the apportionment of the share between the additional appellants 3 to 5 and the 4th respondent will have to be ordered by this Court. While ordering the proportionate share in the compensation amount, this Court need not go by the principles governing the Law of Succession. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances, it is ordered that the enhanced compensation be apportioned among the appellants 3 to 5 and the 4th respondent in the ratio 10: 35: 35: 20. The insurance company shall deposit the share of the additional appellants 4 and 5 in the manner as directed above in a fixed deposit account in a Nationalized Bank in their names till they attain majority and produce the receipts before the Tribunal. The additional 3rd appellant and the 4th respondent shall furnish the Bank Accounts for enabling the Insurance Company to transfer the amount directly to the accounts. The appeal is ordered accordingly. Proportionate cost will also follow.