The court recalibrated compensation for loss of earnings and permanent disability based on updated notional income and appropriate multipliers, emphasizing just and reasonable compensation.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant is the claimant in O.P. (MV) No. 526/2006 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur. The respondents in the original petition are the respondents in this appeal as well. Aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

2. Before the Tribunal, the appellant contended that on 17.10.2005 at around 3:30 p.m., while her husband Padmakumar was driving a Maruti Omni van along the Alappuzha- Kollam National Highway with her and their two children, an Indigo car driven by the 2^nd respondent collided with their van near Maruthamukku, causing them serious injuries. The appellant alleged that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by the 2^nd respondent which is owned by the Chief Conservator (Development), Forest Headquarters the 1^st respondent, and insured with the District Insurance Officer, Kerala State Insurance Department, the 3^rd respondent. Accordingly, it was contended that respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to compensate the appellant for the personal injuries sustained in the accident.

3. The appellant was a 36-year-old housewife who also worked as an LIC agent, at the time of accident. According to her, she was earning an income of Rs. 7,500/- per month. As a result of the accident, she sustained multiple injuries, including serious trauma to her right hip region. She suffered a pelvic fracture, dislocation of the right hip, and a comminuted fracture of the right femoral shaft. Due to these injuries, she experienced shortening of the right leg. She was treated as an inpatient at Amrita Hospital, Ernakulam, where she underwent multiple surgeries. She claimed a total compensation of Rs. 46,95,000/- under various heads. The husband of the appellant and the two minor children filed separate claim petitions.

4. Respondents 1 and 2 filed written statements contending that there was no negligence on the part of the 2^nd respondent, and that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the van by the appellant's husband. Therefore, they contended that, the respondents are not liable to pay any compensation to the appellant. It was also contended that the compensation claimed under various heads is excessive, exorbitant, and exaggerated.

5. The 3^rd respondent insurer filed a written statement largely in conformity with the contentions of respondents 1 and 2. It was contended that the compensation claimed under various heads is excessive and exorbitant, and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. The Tribunal ordered joint trial of all the four original petitions. Evidence was adduced in OP (MV) No. 527/2006 filed by the appellant's husband.

7. The Tribunal found that the accident happened due to the negligence on the part of the 2^nd respondent, the driver of the car.

8. The Tribunal, by common award, found that the appellant is entitled to get Rs.11,93,700/- (Rupees eleven lakhs ninety three thousand and seven hundred only) as compensation with 7.5% interest from the date of original petition, ie. from 11.07.2006, till realisation and proportionate cost of Rs.30,000/-. The Tribunal also found that respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable for the amount of compensation, along with interest and proportionate costs. The 3^rd respondent insurance company was made liable to indemnify the 1^st respondent/insured.

9. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads is as follows:-

The appellant seeks enhancement of the quan