IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that just compensation must reflect the victim's pre-accident position, including appropriate notional income and future prospects, considering the nature of the victim's occupation.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner in O.P.(MV) No. 434 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Pathanamthitta filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. According to the petitioner, on 11.02.2019, while she was riding a scooter, autorickshaw driven by the 1 ^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner caused to hit the scooter and thereby, she fell down and sustained serious injuries. The 2 ^nd respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle and the 3 ^rd respondent is the insurer.

3. Before the Tribunal, Exhibits A1 to A15 were marked from the side of the petitioner and no evidence adduced from the side of the respondents.

4. The Tribunal arrived at a finding that the accident occurred because of the negligence on the part of the 1 ^st respondent and that respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.6,39,960/- to the petitioner.

5. Heard Sri. T. K. Koshy, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Rinny Stephen Champarambil, the learned counsel for the respondent insurance company

6. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant was aged 52 years and earning Rs.18,000/- per month from her occupation as a dairy farmer and agriculturist and the Tribunal fixed a notional income of Rs.12,000/- and the same is on the lower side. It is argued that as per the principles 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], the monthly income fixed is for an ordinary worker and in this case, the appellant is a dairy farmer and agriculturist and in the absence of serious dispute regarding the occupation and considering the fact that documentary evidence may not be available to specifically prove the earnings of a self-cultivating agriculturist, the Tribunal ought to have fixed a higher amount as notional income.

7. In this connection, the learned counsel for the appellant also cited the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Rajani v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. [2022 (5) KLT SN 41 (C. No. 38) SC], wherein the deceased was a pineapple cultivator and the Honourable Supreme Court held that in such matters, a robust view has to be taken of the quantum of earnings, since documentary evidence may not be available to specifically prove the quantum of earnings of a self-cultivating agriculturist. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances, I find that it is only reasonable to fix the monthly notional income of the appellant at Rs.14,000/- per month for the purpose of calculating the compensation.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that Exhibit A10 would show that the appellant sustained 20% permanent disability and the Tribunal accepted only 18% functional disability for the purpose of calculating the compensation for loss of earning capacity and the same is on the lower side.

9. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar , (2011) 1 SCC 343], the Honourable Supreme Court summarised the principles for ascertainment of loss of earning capacity due to permanent disability as follows:

(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.

(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that the percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as the percentage of permanent disability).

(iii) The doctor who