The court modified the tribunal's compensation award, recognizing the claimant's actual income and injury impact, thereby enhancing total compensation to Rs.3,47,350.

JUDGMENT :

Shoba Annamma Eapen, J.

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant in O.P (MV) No.686 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala. The respondent herein is the 2^nd respondent before the tribunal.

2. According to the appellant/claimant, on 24.10.2010 at about 04.40 pm, while the petitioner was riding pillion on a motorcycle bearing registration KL-36-A-8622 ridden by the 1^st respondent. The 1^st respondent suddenly turned the motorcycle to the right side as a result of which the petitioner fell down and sustained serious injuries. The appellant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.4,51,000/- limited to Rs.3,00,000/-.

3. Before the tribunal, the 1^st respondent remained ex parte. The 2^nd respondent-insurer, admitting the policy, but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, PWs 1 to 3 were examined on the side of the petitioner and documentary evidence of Exts.A1 to A13 were marked on the side of the petitioner. Ext.X1 was marked as court exhibits. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of Rs.1,03,850/- as compensation under different heads with interest @7.5% 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 the appellant was a building contractor at the time of the accident. The insurer submitted that no document was produced to prove the income nor the avocation. On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the claimant himself was examined as PW1. I have gone through the certified copy of the deposition, which was handed over to me by the learned counsel for the appellant. On a perusal of the same, he has stated that he was a building contractor at the time of the accident and was earning an amount of Rs.25,000. However no other supporting evidence was produced. Considering the above facts, I find that as per the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [ 2011 (13) SCC 236 ], the monthly income of a coolie ought to have been taken as Rs.7,500/-. Considering the facts of this case, I deem it appropriate to refix the monthly income at Rs.8,500/-.

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 three months for awarding compensation. The learned counsel submitted that due to the injuries sustained, the appellant could not go for any work for more than eight months. Considering the nature of injuries sustained, I find that a period of six months can be taken for awarding compensation under the afore head. Since the notional monthly income is refixed at Rs.8,500/-, the total compensation payable under the head is recalculated thus: Rs.51,000/- (8,500x6). The tribunal has already awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- under the said head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of Rs.36,000/- under the head loss of earnings.

Bystander expenses :- The tribunal has taken only an amount of Rs.200/- per day for a period of 35 days. Considering the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2010, I find that an amount Rs.250/- per day would be just and reasonable and, thus the total compensation will come to Rs.8,750/-. The tribunal has already awarded an amount of Rs.7,000/- under the said head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of Rs.1,75