Compensation must be just and reasonable, with statutory recognition of income significantly influencing awards in personal injury cases involving minor claimants.

JUDGMENT :

(SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J.)

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant in O.P (MV) No.96 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta. The respondents herein are the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the appellant/claimant, on 13.07.2013 at about 01.30 pm, while the petitioner was riding a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL-03-V-9141, an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-03-R-6574 driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle. As a result of the accident, the petitioner sustained serious injuries. The appellant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.5,47,000/- limited to Rs.5,00,000/-.

3. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte before the tribunal. The respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy, but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the appellant/claimant. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of Rs.1,51,647/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs from respondent- insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurance company.

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

Notional income :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal has taken only an amount of Rs.3,500/- as the monthly income of the appellant, who was a student. Going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [ 2011 (13) SCC 236 ], the monthly income of the claimant ought to have been fixed at Rs.9,000/-. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that since the claimant was only 18 years the income fixed by the tribunal does not require any interference. However, considering the fact that the injured was aged 18 years, I find it reasonable to follow the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), and refix the notional income of the appellant at Rs.9,000/-.

Loss of earnings :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that towards the head loss of earnings, the tribunal has taken only a period of two months for awarding compensation. The petitioner has sustained lacerated wound over right knee with joint extension with osteochondral fracture femur lateral condyle right side. Considering the nature of injuries sustained, I find that a period of three months can be taken for awarding compensation under the afore head. Since the notional monthly income is refixed at Rs.9,000/-, the total compensation payable under the head is recalculated thus: Rs.27,000/- (9,000x3). The tribunal has already awarded an amount of Rs.7,000/- under the said head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of Rs.20,000/- under the head loss of earnings.

Bystander expenses :- The tribunal has taken only an amount of Rs.200/- per day for a period of 18 days. Considering the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2013, I find that an amount Rs.300/- per day would be just and reasonable, thus the total compensation will come to Rs.5,400/-. The tribunal has already awarded an amount of Rs.3,600/- under the said head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of Rs.1,800/- under the head bystander expenses.

Compensation for disability :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, as per Ext.A5 disability certificate, the disability of th