IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that compensation for motor accident claims must be calculated based on the claimant's actual and potential earnings, taking into account the nature of their work and the extent of their disability.

JUDGMENT :

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

This appeal has been filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.1962 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. The respondent herein was the second respondent before the tribunal.

2. The case of the appellant/claimant is that on 07.06.2015 at 3.50 pm, while he was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-39-D-1218 through Madavana -Panangad public road, a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-39-B-8673 owned and ridden by the first respondent hit against the motorcycle ridden by the appellant, whereby he sustained serious injuries. He approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.60,00,000/-.

3. The first respondent remained ex parte before the tribunal. The respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, the evidence consists of oral evidence of PWs 1 & 2 and documentary evidence as Exts.A1 to A17 on the side of the appellant/claimant and Ext.X1 as court evidence. No evidence was adduced by the respondent insurer. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the rider of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of Rs.17,67,600/-as compensation under different heads against the second respondent being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant claims enhancement mainly under the following heads;

5.1. Notional income -The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2 would show that the appellant was a painter by profession and the evidence of PW2 would reveal that the appellant was earning Rs.800/-per day. Here, in this case, the appellant proved before the tribunal in evidence that he was a painter by profession. Further, though PWs 1 and 2 were cross-examined, their depositions could not be controverted by the respondent insurer. It is a fact that even going by the decision in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236], the notional monthly income of a coolie is Rs.10,000/-. However, considering the avocation of the appellant and also considering the fact that the claim of the appellant that he was earning Rs.800/-per day is proved in evidence, I deem it appropriate to fix his notional monthly income at Rs.12,000/-.

5.2. Loss of earnings -Since the notional monthly income of the appellant is refixed at Rs.12,000/-, compensation towards loss of earning for a period of 12 months has to be recalculated, which would come to Rs.1,44,000/-. Thus, the appellant will be entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs.24,000/-towards loss of earnings after deducting the compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- awarded by the tribunal.

5.3. Permanent disability -Ext.X1 certificate shows that the appellant was referred to the Medical Board and the disability of the appellant was assessed by the Medical Board at 40%. This is a case where the appellant underwent amputation of the left leg below the knee and being a painter by profession, amputation of his left leg may prevent him from continuing with the same avocation. It is seen that the tribunal estimated his disability as functional disability at 50% for awarding compensation towards permanent disability, which does not appear to be reasonable. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of the apex court in Sarnam Singh v. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. and others [2023 LiveLaw (SC) 498]. That was a case wherein the injured was working as a Gunman and on account of the amputation of the right leg above the knee, he was terminated from service. The apex court found that a person with