Compensation for personal injury claims must reflect the claimant's actual financial conditions and the severity of injuries, emphasizing current standards and medical assessments.

JUDGMENT :

Shoba Annamma Eapen, J.

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant in O.P (MV) No.7 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - I, Thodupuzha. The respondents herein are the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the appellant/claimant, on 02.02.2009 at 01.35 pm, while the petitioners were travelling in an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-38-3809, a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KL- 15-3663 driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit on the autorickshaw. As a result of the accident, the petitioner sustained serious injuries. The appellant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-.

3. Before the tribunal, the respondents 1 and 2 filed a written statement, admitting the policy, but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. Exts.A1 to A12 were marked on the side of the appellant/claimant, before the tribunal. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of Rs.1,27,590/- as compensation under different heads with interest @8% 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.3,000/- as the monthly income of the appellant who was a homemaker. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that, even 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 taken a5 Rs.7,000/-. I find force in the argument. Following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (Supra) I deem it appropriate to re monthly income at Rs.7,000/-.

Loss of income :- Since the notional monthly income is re at Rs.7,000/-, the total compensation payable under the head is recalculated thus: Rs.42,000/- (7,000x6). The tribunal has already awarded an amount of Rs.18,000/- under the said head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of Rs.24,000/- under the head loss of earnings.

Loss of amenities :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though an amount of Rs.5,000/- has been awarded towards loss of amenities. Following are the injuries sustained :-

“Head injury, fracture lateral wall of right orbit, comminuted displaced fracture right scapula, undisplaced fractures in the 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 ribs, comminuted fracture of right temporal bone, posterior interhemispheric bleed and parietal thickness suprasphinated tear right shoulder.”

Considering the nature of injuries sustained as well as the age of the appellant, I find that a total amount of Rs.25,000/- can be awarded under the head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of Rs.20,000/- under the afore head.

Compensation for disability :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Ext.A11 disability certificate issued by Medical Board Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Thodupuzha the disability of the appellant was assessed as 15%. However, the tribunal did not accept Ext.A11 certificate and reduced the percentage of disability at 6%. Perusal of the disability certificate, a copy of which was handed over to me by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is seen that the Medical Board has assessed the disability at 15%. I do not find any reason to disbelieve t