The court modified the compensation awarded by the tribunal, emphasizing the need for fair assessment based on actual loss and established judicial precedents.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal has been filed by the claimant in OP (MV) No.3055 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. The case of the appellant/claimant is that on 21.01.2003, while he was walking and pushing a cart to sell groundnuts, a tanker lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-9/K-6255 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit on a barricade and then hit him, whereby he sustained serious injuries. He approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs. 1,92,000/-.

3. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte before the tribunal. The third 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, PW1 was marked and Exts.A1 to A11 were marked on the side of the appellant/claimant. Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the respondents. 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. 1,25,720/- as compensation under different heads against the third respondent being the insurer. 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 and the learned Standing Counsel for the 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 the appellant was a seller of groundnuts and was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month, however, the tribunal has fixed the notional monthly income only at Rs. 3,000/-. 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. 4,000/-. Accordingly, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), I deem it appropriate to refix the notional monthly income of the appellant at Rs. 4,000/-.

5.2. Loss of earnings - The learning counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was a seller of groundnuts and due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he could not go for work for almost six months. However, the tribunal has taken only a period of three months for awarding compensation towards loss of earnings. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the age of the appellant, I am of the opinion that six months can be taken for awarding compensation for loss of earnings. Accordingly, the appellant will be entitled to get a total compensation of Rs. 24,000/- (4000 x 6) under this head. Since the tribunal has already awarded an amount of Rs. 9,000/- there will be an additional compensation of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of earnings.

5.3. Pain and suffering - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the appellant claimed Rs. 20,000/- towards pain and suffering, the tribunal awarded only Rs. 12,000/-. It is seen that the appellant sustained serious injuries including compound comminuted fracture M/3 right tibia and fibula. Considering the injuries sustained by him and the sufferings that he had undergone, I am inclined to grant an amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the appellant as total compensation towards pain and suffering. Thus, the appellant will be entitled to get an additional amount of Rs. 8,000/- as compensation towards pain and suffering.

5.4. Permanent disability - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per Ext.A8 disability certificate, permanent disability of the appellant was assessed at 25%, which was reduced by the tribunal to 15% while assessing compensation. The doctor, who issued Ext.A8 disability certificate, was examined before the tribunal and he deposed