The court emphasized the need for fair compensation based on actual income and severity of injuries, enhancing the total compensation to Rs.21,93,000.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.34/2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Wayanad, Kalpetta is the appellant herein. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal).

2. The petitioner filed the above O.P. under Section 166 (1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 20.4.2014. According to the petitioner, on 20.4.2014 at about 12 p.m., while he was riding pillion on a Scooter from Kalpetta to Kozhikode, and when he reached a place called Pookode, a car bearing registration No.KL-11U-6309 driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, knocked him down and as a result of the accident, the petitioner sustained serious injuries.

3. The 1^st respondent is the driver, the 2^nd respondent is the owner and 3^rd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. According to the petitioner, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. is Rs.12,92,000/- limited to Rs.7,00,000/-.

4. The insurance company filed a written statement, admitting the accident as well as policy, but disputing the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.

5. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and documentary evidence Exhibits A1 to A13 series and C1. No evidence was adduced by the respondents.

6. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal found negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,07,500/- and directed the insurer to pay the same.

7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner preferred this appeal.

8. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following:

Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

9. Heard Smt. Celine Joseph, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant and Sri.P.G. Ganappan, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid insurance policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is regarding the income of the petitioner as fixed by the Tribunal. According to her, the petitioner was conducting Cable TV Network service, earning Rs.15,000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.6,000/-. The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable.

11. In order to prove the income of the petitioner, the learned counsel has relied upon Exhibit A11 and A12 documents. Exhibit A11 is the Registration certificate in favour of the petitioner issued by the Postmaster, Kalpetta for conducting Cable TV Network Service at Pinangode. Exhibit A12 is the copy of the rent deed in respect of the room taken by the petitioner for conducting the cable TV Network service.

12. It is true that the petitioner could not prove his income, as claimed in the OP. However from Exhibit A11 and A12 and from the evidence given by the petitioner as PW1, it is proved that the petitioner was a Cable TV Network Operator by profession. Since from Exhibit A11 and A12, it is revealed that the petitioner was conducting Cable TV Network Service, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for fixing the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.15,000/-.

13. As per the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236] , the notional income of a coolie, in the 2014 will come to Rs.9,500/- Therefore, the petitioner being a Cable TV Network Operator by profession, his notional income is fixed at Rs.12,000/-, for the purpose of computing the loss of disability.

14. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following