IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that notional income for compensation must reflect fair wages, and beneficial legislation should favor the injured party, allowing for enhanced compensation based on established precedents.

JUDGMENT :

JOHNSON JOHN, J.

1. The appellant was the petitioner in O.P (MV) No. 227 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kasaragod.

2. According to the appellant, on 11.06.2010, at about 10 p.m., while he was riding a motorcycle, autorickshaw driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner caused to hit the motorcycle and thereby, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Respondents 2 and 3 are the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

3. At the time of trial, Exhibits A1 to A8 were marked from the side of the petitioner and no evidence was adduced from the side of the respondents.

4. After trial and hearing both sides, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred because of the negligence on the part of the 1st respondent. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.74,000/- to the appellant. The appellant is challenging the quantum of compensation determined by the Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal has not correctly fixed the notional income and also failed to grant compensation towards loss of earning capacity of the appellant. The compensation granted by the Tribunal on other heads are also on the lower side and therefore, requires interference by this Court in appeal.

5. Heard Sri. K.P. Harish, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. Lal K. Joseph, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent.

6. As per the order dated 20.02.2020, this Court directed the superintendent, District Hospital, Kasaragod to constitute a Medical Board to assess the permanent disability, if any, of the appellant on account of the injury sustained in the motor accident and accordingly, the Medical Board assessed the disability and the medical certificate in this regard is marked as Exhibit X1.

7. According to the appellant, he was aged 21 years at the time of the accident and having a monthly income of Rs.4,500/-. But, the Tribunal found that the appellant has not succeeded in proving the said monthly income and therefore, fixed a notional income of Rs.3,000/- per month for the purpose of calculating the loss of earning.

8. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236 and Syed Sadiq and Others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company, (2014) 2 SCC 735 : 2014 KHC 4027 shows that even in the absence of any evidence, the monthly income of an ordinary worker has to be fixed as Rs.4,500/- in respect of the accident occurred in the year 2004 and for the subsequent years, the monthly income could be reckoned by adding Rs.500/- each per year. If the monthly income of the appellant is calculated by adopting the above principle, it will come to Rs.7,500/- as the accident occurred in the year 2010.

9. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent argued that the appellant claimed only Rs.4,500/- as his monthly income in the claim petition and therefore, it is not just and fair to fix a higher amount as notional income based on the decision in Ramachandrappa (supra). The learned counsel for the appellant cited the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court in Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto and others, 2022 KHC 7080 and Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, 2003 KHC 15 to point out that the grant of just and fair compensation is a statutory responsibility of the court, and even if a less amount is claimed in the claim petition, the same would not be an impediment to award just compensation in excess of the amount claimed.

10. It cannot be disputed that even a casual worker is entitled for fair wages and the notional income of an ordinary worker has to be fixed after considering the fair wages at the relevant time and only because the appellant was earning less than the fair wages at the time of occurrence, he cannot be denied parity in the matter of notional income, as it is well settled that beneficial legislations with social objective are expected to be interpreted in favour of those for whose