JUDGMENT The petitioners in O.P.(MV) No.2032/2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam are the appellants herein. They are the parents and sister of the deceased Pramod who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 30.06.2011. 2. According to the petitioners, on 30.06.2011 at about 02.00 pm, while the deceased was sitting on his motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL-02 V-8023, which was parked by the road margin, a car bearing Registration No.KL-4V-5068 driven by the 2 nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit the deceased. As a result of which, he was thrown away and he sustained grievous injuries and he succumbed to the injuries on 01.07.2011. 3. According to the petitioners, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by the 2 nd respondent. The 1 st respondent is the RC owner and 3 rd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Therefore, they filed the OP claiming a compensation of Rs.9,00,000/-. 4. Respondents in the written statement admitted the accident as well as valid insurance policy but disputed the negligence on the part of the 2 nd respondent. The evidence in the case consists of documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A12. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. 5. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,52,115/-. 6. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant preferred this appeal. 7. Now the points that arise for consideration are the following: (1) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? (2) Whether the notional income of a victim of road traffic accident can be fixed over and above what is claimed in the Original Petition ? 8. Heard Sri.Thyparambil Thomas Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Sri.S.M.Prasanth, the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent and Sri.P.K.Manojkumar, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3 rd respondent. 9. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is regarding the notional income of the deceased fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.5,000/-. According to the learned counsel, as per the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance [ (2011) 13 SCC 236 ], notional income of a coolie during the year 2011 would come to Rs.8,000/-. According to the learned counsel, as per the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance [ (2011) 13 SCC 236 ], notional income of a coolie during the year 2011 would come to Rs.8,000/-. Therefore, he prayed for fixing the notional income of the deceased at least at Rs.8,000/-. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent would argue that the monthly income of the deceased cannot be fixed over and above what is claimed in the claim petition. He also submitted that in this case, the petitioners have produced Ext.A9, a salary certificate of the deceased. However, it is to be noted that the petitioners have not examined any witnesses to prove Ext.A9. He has also relied upon the decisions in Sakharam v. Karan Development Service Pvt. Ltd [2023 KHC OnLine 7245], Chaus Taushif Alimiya Etc. v. Memon Mahmmad Umar Anwarbhai and Ors. [AIR 2023 SCC 1110], Mammutty v. Prabhakaran [2024 KHC OnLine 1113], Ansar v. Sunilkumar I.B. [2023 KHC OnLine 9451], Vinod v. Sabu Paily [2024 KHC OnLine 1121] and Ratheesh v. National Insurance Company [MACA No.3014 of 2015], in support of his argument. 11. In the decision in Chaus Taushif Alimiya (supra) , the accident occurred on 22.08.2012, and the victim claimed a monthly income of Rs.3,000/-. It was accepted as such by the Tribunal as well as the High Court and the prayer for enhancement of the income was declined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 12. In Sakharam (supra), in an accident that occurred on 25.6.2008 a truck driver claimed that he was earning around Rs.3500/- per month. However, both the Tribunal as well as the High Court have reckoned the income at Rs.3000/- per month. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the claim as put forth by the appellant at Rs.3500/- per month is required to be accepted. The question whether the notional income of a victim could be fixed over and above what is claimed did not arise for consideration in that case. 13. In Ansar (supra), a Single Bench of this Court was dealing with the claim of a victim of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 22.4.2006. He produced a salary certificate to prove that he has a monthly income of Rs.4500/-. The Tribunal rejected the certificate and taken his monthly income as Rs.3000/-. 13. In Ansar (supra), a Single Bench of this Court was dealing with the claim of a victim of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 22.4.2006. He produced a salary certificate to prove that he has a monthly income of Rs.4500/-. The Tribunal rejected the certificate and taken his monthly income as Rs.3000/-. The learned Single Judge taking note of the fact that the accident has occurred in the year 2006, accepted his monthly income as Rs.4500/- as stated in the salary certificate. 14. In Vinod (supra), a victim of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 22.5.2006 produced a salary certificate to prove that his monthly income was Rs.6000/-. The Tribunal did not accept the same and took his monthly income as Rs.3000/-. However relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa (supra), the learned Single Judge observed that even the notional income of a Coolie during the year 2006 will come to Rs.5500/- and since the victim therein was an Electrician-cum-Plumber, which is a skilled employment, his monthly income as claimed in the salary certificate at Rs.6000/- was accepted. 15. In Mammutty (supra), the legal heirs of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 25.2.2010 claimed that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs.6000 from his employment and to substantiate the same, they produced Ext.A7 certificate. The Tribunal did not accept the certificate and the monthly income was fixed as Rs.4000/-. Relying upon the decision in Ramachandrappa (supra), the learned Single Judge held that monthly income of Rs.6000/- in the year 2010 claimed by the petitioners appears to be reasonable and hence the same was accepted. 16. In Ratheesh (supra), the victim in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 30.3.2008, claimed a monthly income of Rs.6000. However, the Tribunal has taken only Rs.3000/- as his notional income. After relying upon the decision in Ramachandrappa (supra), the learned Single Judge accepted the monthly income of Rs.6000/- as claimed by the appellant. 17. In any of the above decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent, the question whether the notional income of a victim of road traffic accident could be fixed over and above what is claimed did not raise for consideration. In the above circumstance, an earlier decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Minu Rout and Ors. v. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra and Ors. In the above circumstance, an earlier decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Minu Rout and Ors. v. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra and Ors. [ (2013) 10 SCC 695 ] will be useful to resolve the present issue. In that case, the salary of a deceased driver who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 8.11.2004 as claimed in the petition was Rs.5,000/-. However, the Tribunal had taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- alone. In the above circumstance, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, the Tribunal ought to have taken the salary of the deceased driver at Rs.6,000/- by taking judicial notice of the fact that the post of a driver is a skilled job, for awarding just and reasonable compensation, which is the statutory duty of the Tribunal and Appellate Court. In paragraph 13 the court held that :- “13. The appellants claimed compensation under the heading of loss of dependency as they were all dependents upon the earnings of the deceased Susil Rout. It is an undisputed fact that Susil Rout was working as a driver of the car which is a skilled job. Appellants have stated in the claim petition and in the evidence of PW-1 that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. The oral evidence of PW-1 is not accepted by the Tribunal, solely for the reason that the appellants did not produce documentary evidence to prove the monthly salary of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month as claimed by them. However, it had taken monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-, for the purpose of determining the multiplicand. Out of Rs.3,000/- p.m., 1/3rd amount was deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and arrived at Rs.3,84,000/- towards loss of dependency. Out of that compensation, 50% was deducted towards contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and Rs.1,92,000/- was awarded under the above heading. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is approved by the High Court, which is not only erroneous in law but also suffers from error in law. The Tribunal ought to have taken the salary of the deceased driver at Rs.6,000/- by taking judicial notice of the fact that the post of a driver is a skilled job. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is approved by the High Court, which is not only erroneous in law but also suffers from error in law. The Tribunal ought to have taken the salary of the deceased driver at Rs.6,000/- by taking judicial notice of the fact that the post of a driver is a skilled job. Though the claim of the appellants is Rs.5000/- as monthly salary of the deceased for the purpose of determining the loss of dependency, the actual entitlement of the salary of the deceased should have been taken at Rs.6000/- per month by the Tribunal for awarding just and reasonable compensation, which is the statutory duty of the Tribunal and the Appellate Court………...” 18. In the decision in Mubarak v. The Divisional Manager, New Indian Assurance Co. Ltd [ 2024 (5) KLT 803 ], this Court relying upon the decision in Minu Rout (supra) fixed the notional income of the victim @ Rs.8,000/-, in a case in which the claim was only Rs.5,000/- 19. Similarly the decision in Niyas v. Mohana and Ors. [MANU/KE/ 4442/2024] , this Court has fixed the notional income of the victim at Rs.7,500/- though the income claimed was only Rs.4,500/-. 20. In another decision of this Court in Robin v. The Secretary, Fishing Harbour Ice Distribution Welfare Society, Sakthikulangara [M ACA No.689 of 2012], the notional income of the victim was fixed at Rs.6,000/-, though the claim was only Rs.3,500/-. 21. In this context, it is also to be noted that, in the decisions in Chaus Taushif Alimiya (supra) and Sakharam (supra), the earlier decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Minu Rout (supra) was not considered. Further, as I have already noted above, the question whether the notional income of a victim of a road traffic accident could be fixed over and above what is claimed, did not raise for consideration in Chaus Taushif Alimiya (supra) and Sakharam (supra) also. In this context, it is also to be noted that in the decision in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh & Ors., 2003 (2) SCC 274 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in the Motor Vehicles Act there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the amount claimed. The Apex Court further observed that the function of the Tribunal/Court is to award 'just' compensation which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. The Apex Court further observed that the function of the Tribunal/Court is to award 'just' compensation which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. In the decision in Angad Tiwari & Another v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another (SLP (C) Diary No.33779/2023), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Tribunal as well as the High Court could not have granted anything less than the minimum wage towards income. 22. Therefore, mainly in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Minu Rout (supra) , I am not inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent that the notional income of the deceased cannot be fixed over and above what is claimed in the Original Petition. On the other hand, it is the duty of this court as well as the Tribunals to award just and reasonable compensation to the victims of road traffic accidents. Therefore, I hold that, for awarding just and reasonable compensation to victims of road traffic accidents, in appropriate cases, the Tribunals/Courts are empowered to fix the notional income over and above what is claimed in the OP. 23. As per the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance [ (2011) 13 SCC 236 ], notional income of a coolie during the year 2011 would come to Rs.8,000/-. Since as per the decision in Ramachandrappa (supra) the notional income of a person having no income is fixed as that of a coolie, it will be unreasonable to fix the notional income of a person who earns something, below that of a person having no income at all. In the above circumstances, I am inclined to fix the notional income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/-, as that of a coolie. 24. Since, on the date of accident, the deceased was aged 27 years and he was a bachelor, 40% of his income is to be added towards future prospects, in the light of the decision in National Insurance Co.Ltd v Pranay Sethi [ (2017) 16 SCC 680 ]. His age being 27, the multiplier to be applied is 17. 24. Since, on the date of accident, the deceased was aged 27 years and he was a bachelor, 40% of his income is to be added towards future prospects, in the light of the decision in National Insurance Co.Ltd v Pranay Sethi [ (2017) 16 SCC 680 ]. His age being 27, the multiplier to be applied is 17. Since he was a bachelor at the time of death, ½ of the income is to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses, in the light of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [ (2009) 6 SCC 121 ]. Therefore, the loss of dependency will come to Rs.11,42,400/-. 25. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount on the head pain and suffering. No compensation was also awarded towards loss of estate and loss of consortium. However, a sum of Rs.25,000/- was awarded towards funeral expenses. In the light of the decision in Pranay Sethi (supra), the petitioners are entitled to get a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, and Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium, with an increase of 10% in every three years. In the above circumstances, they are entitled to get a sum of Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate, Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.1,45,200/- towards loss of consortium (48,400x3). 26. Towards the head 'pain and suffering', the Tribunal has not awarded any amount. The accident was on 30.06.2011 and the victim died on 01.07.2011. Therefore, I hold that a sum of Rs.25,000/- can be awarded towards pain and sufferings. 27. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable. 28. Therefore, the petitioners/appellants are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.13,66,015 /- , as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below, for easy reference. Sl. 27. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable. 28. Therefore, the petitioners/appellants are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.13,66,015 /- , as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below, for easy reference. Sl. No. Head of claim Amount awarded by the Tribunal(Rs) The amount given in appeal (Rs.) 1 Loss of earning from till the date of filing the petition Nil Nil 2 Partial loss of earning Nil Nil 3 Transport to hospital 1,000 1,000 4 Extra nourishment Nil Nil 5 Damages to clothing and article 1,000 1,000 6 Others : Medical & Funeral expenses 15,115 25,000 15,115 18,150 7 Compensation for pain and suffering Nil 25000 8 Compensation for loss of dependency 5,10,000 11,42,400 9 Compensation for loss of estate Nil 18,150 10 Compensation for loss of consortium Nil 1,45,200 Total 5,52,115 13,66,015 Amount enhanced 8,13,900 29. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and the 3 rd respondent is directed to deposit a total compensation of Rs.13,66,015/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Sixty Six Thousand Fifteen Only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest @ 9% per annum as ordered by the Tribunal, from the date of the petition till realisation (interest for enhanced compensation is limited to 8% per annum), excluding interest for a period of 55 days, the period of delay in filing the appeal, with proportionate costs, within a period of two months from today. 30. On depositing the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the entire amount to the petitioners, in the ratio fixed by the Tribunal, excluding court fee payable, if any, without delay and as per rules.