Court emphasized the necessity of realistic and fair compensation for personal injuries in motor accidents, focusing on notional income, pain, suffering, and loss of amenities.

JUDGMENT :

(SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J.)

This appeal has been filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.491 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam. The respondents herein are the respondents before the Tribunal.

2. According to the appellant, on 29.07.2010 at 05.30 p.m., while he was standing on the eastern side of Pathanamthitta-Kaipattoor public road at Mamoodu Junction, an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-26/A-3329 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit on the claimant and as a result, he sustained serious injuries. The appellant approached the Tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-.

3. The first, second and the third respondents are the owner, the driver and the insurer of the offending vehicle respectively before the tribunal. Though notice was served on the respondents, the second respondent remained absent and set ex parte. The first respondent filed a written statement denying the negligence on the part of the second respondent. The third respondent insurer filed a written statement admitting the insurance policy, but contending that the second respondent had no valid driving licence at the time of accident. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A9 documents were marked on the side of the appellant. No oral or documentary evidence was marked on the side of the respondents. PW1 was examined. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of Rs.1,37,400/-, which was rounded to Rs.1,38,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 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 insurer.

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

I. Notional Income

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the appellant had claimed an amount of Rs.4,000/- as the notional income of the deceased, who was a businessman by profession, the Tribunal had taken only an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month. Since no evidence has been adduced to prove the income of the appellant, on the basis of the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [ 2011 (13) SCC 236 ], the monthly income ought to have been taken at Rs.7,500/-. Hence, I am inclined to re-fix the notional monthly income of the appellant at Rs.7,500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred Only).

II. Loss of earnings

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant sustained serious injuries due to the accident. However, the tribunal has taken only a period of three months for awarding compensation under the head loss of earnings. Following are the injuries sustained by the appellant:

i) Lacerated wound on the forehead 3x4 cm

ii) Lacerated wound left parieto occipital region 4.5x5 cm

iii) Lacerated wound right forearm just below the elbow .5x.5 cm

iv) Abrasion over right hand 3^rd web space

v) Laceration over the upper lip 3x1x1 cm In A7 discharge summary serious head injury was noted.

Considering the nature of injuries sustained, I find that a period of six months can be taken for awarding compensation under the said head would be just and reasonable Since the notional monthly income has been re-fixed at Rs.7,500/-, the total compensation payable under the said head would be Rs.45,000/- (7,500 x 6). The tribunal had already awarded an amount of Rs.9,000/- under the said head. Thus there will be an additional enhancement of Rs.36,000/- (Rupees Thirty Six Thousand Only) under the said head.

III. Pain and suffering:

The lea