The court established that compensation must be just and reasonable, adjusting notional income and damages based on established precedents to reflect the claimant's injuries and losses.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal has been filed by the claimant in OP (MV) No.501 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. The case of the appellant/claimant is that on 15.12.2005, while he was walking as a pedestrian along the Aluva Market road, a mini lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-33/AB-6820 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit him, whereby he sustained serious injuries. He approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/-.

3. Respondents 1 and 2 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, Exts.A1 to A16 were marked and PW1 was examined on the side of the appellant/claimant. Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the third respondent. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of Rs. 4,41,839/- as compensation under different heads against the third respondent being the insurer, with right of recovery from the first respondent/owner of the offending vehicle. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the first respondent, and the learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent insurer.

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

5.1. Notional income - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the appellant claimed that he was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month as a driver by profession, the tribunal has fixed the notional monthly income only at Rs. 3,500/-. Admittedly, no document was produced by the appellant to prove income. However, as per the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236, the notional monthly income of the appellant ought to have been fixed at Rs. 5,000/-. Accordingly, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), I deem it appropriate to refix the notional monthly income of the appellant at Rs. 5,000/-.

5.2. Loss of earnings - Since the notional monthly income of the appellant is refixed at Rs. 5,000/- compensation towards loss of earnings for a period of six months has to be recalculated, which would come to Rs. 30,000/-. Thus, the appellant will be entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs. 9,000/- towards loss of earnings after deducting the compensation of Rs. 21,000/- awarded by the tribunal.

5.3. Pain and suffering - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the appellant claimed Rs. 1,50,000/- towards pain and suffering, the tribunal awarded only Rs. 35,000/-. It is seen that the appellant sustained contusion with abrasion on the vertex, multiple abrasion on the extremities and multiple fractures. Considering the injuries sustained by him and the sufferings that he had undergone, I am inclined to grant an amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the appellant as total compensation towards pain and suffering. Thus, the appellant will be entitled to get an additional amount of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation towards pain and suffering.

5.4. Loss of amenities - Though the appellant claimed an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- under this head, the tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs. 20,000/- which, according to the appellant, is on the lower side. Considering the injuries sustained by the appellant, I deem it appropriate to award a total compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of amenities. Thus, the appellant will be entitled to get an additional amount of Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of amenities.

5.5. Permanent disability - Since the notional monthly income of the appellant is refixed at Rs. 5,