Determination of compensation in personal injury claims involves accurate assessment of income, damages for suffering, and factoring in contributory negligence.

JUDGMENT :

Shoba Annamma Eapen, J.

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant in O.P (MV) No.1138 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur. The respondents herein are the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the appellant/claimant, on 31.05.2011 at about 08.30 am, while the petitioner was riding the motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-10-R-3108, a mini lorry bearing registration No.KL-08-B-8694 driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner and in over speed hit on the motorcycle. As a result of the accident, the petitioner sustained serious injuries. The appellant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.13,18,000/-.

3. Before the tribunal, respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte. The 3^rd respondent-insurer, admitting the policy, but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, oral evidence of Pws 1 and 2 were examined and documentary evidence of Exts.A1 to A12 were marked on the side of the petitioner. Ext.C1 was marked as court exhibits. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of Rs.6,14,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest @9% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs from respondent-insurers. 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 though an amount of Rs.9,000/- was claimed as the monthly income of the appellant who was a salesman, the tribunal has taken only an amount of Rs.5,000/- as his monthly income. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that Ext.A9 was produced to prove the salary of the appellant. It is further submitted that the employer, who was issued the salary certificate was also examined as PW2. But, the tribunal did not accept the evidence of PW2. I do not find any reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW2. Since Ext.A9 salary certificate was proved through PW2, I am inclined to refix the monthly income of the appellant at Rs.9,000/-.

Loss of earnings :- Since the notional monthly income is refixed at Rs.9,000/-, the total compensation payable under the head is recalculated thus: Rs.54,000/- (9,000x6). The tribunal has already awarded an amount of Rs.30,000/- under the said head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of Rs.24,000/- under the head loss of earnings.

Bystander expenses :- The tribunal has taken only an amount of less than Rs.200/- per day for a period of 38 days. Considering the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2011, I find that an amount Rs.300/- per day would be just and reasonable, thus the total compensation will come to Rs.11,400/-. The tribunal has already awarded an amount of Rs.7,500/- under the said head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of Rs.3,900/- under the head bystander expenses.

Pain and sufferings :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that an amount of Rs.50,000/- was claimed towards the head pain and sufferings, the tribunal has awarded only an amount of Rs.20,000/-. Considering the nature of injuries sustained as well as the age of the appellant, I find that a total amount of Rs.40,000/- can be awarded under the head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of Rs.20,000/- under the afore head.

Loss of amenities :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that an amount of Rs.30,000/- was claimed towards the head l