The court held that proper compensation for personal injury must reflect actual earning capacity and the nature of injuries sustained, necessitating recalibration of amounts awarded by the tribunal.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal has been filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.1579 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. The respondents herein are the respondents before the tribunal.

2. The case of the appellant/claimant is that on 10.04.2012, while she was walking along Tripunithura Hospital Road towards the hospital, a bus bearing Reg.No.KL-7-AN-6762 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the appellant, whereby she sustained serious injuries. She approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.6,60,000/-.

3. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte before the tribunal. The third respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A16 were marked on the side of the appellant/claimant. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. Ext.X1 was marked as court exhibit. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of Rs.5,41,910/- as compensation under different heads against the third respondent, being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal.

4. I have heard Smt.Manasi, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.S.Arun Raj, the learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent insurer.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant claims enhancement mainly under the following heads;

Notional income - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the appellant, a helper-mason, was earning Rs.7,000/- per month, the tribunal has fixed the notional monthly income at Rs.4,000/-. It is further submitted that, as per the decision in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [ (2011) 13 SCC 236 ], the notional monthly income of the appellant ought to have been fixed at Rs.8500/-. I find force in the argument. Following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), I deem it appropriate to re-fix the notional monthly income of the appellant at Rs.8500/-.

Loss of earnings - Since the monthly income of the appellant is refixed at Rs.8,500/-, compensation towards loss of earnings for a period of 8 months has to be recalculated, which would come to Rs.68,000/- (Rs.8,500/- x 8). Thus, the appellant will be entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs.36,000/- towards loss of earnings after deducting the compensation of Rs.32,000/- awarded by the tribunal.

Loss of earning capacity/personal or permanent disability - Since the monthly income of the appellant is refixed at Rs.8,500/-, compensation towards personal or permanent disability has to be recalculated. Thus, following the judgments in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662(SC)] and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [ 2010 (2) KLT 802(SC) ], the appellant will be entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.1,59,120/- (8500 x 12 x 12% x 13) towards personal or permanent disability. The tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.74,850/-. Hence, there will be an additional amount of Rs.84,270/- under the head personal/permanent disability.

On a perusal of the impugned award, it is seen that the tribunal has granted compensation for both loss of earning capacity and permanent disability, resulting in double compensation. Hence, I am inclined to delete the compensation awarded towards loss of earning capacity. Accordingly, the compensation of Rs.75,000/- awarded towards loss of earning capacity is deleted.

Attendant expenses - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the tribunal had granted only an amount of Rs.19,000/- as the attendant expenses, taking Rs.250/