Court found that the Tribunal's assessment of notional income and disability was inadequate, resulting in an enhanced compensation award.

JUDGMENT :

C.S. SUDHA, J.

This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) by the claim petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.21/2019 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 28/01/2020. The sole respondent herein is the second respondent/insurer in the petition. In this appeal, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition.

2. According to the claim petitioner, on 20/11/2018 at about 03:15 p.m., while he was riding motorcycle through Aluva-Paravur public road and when he reached the place by name Vedimara, car bearing registration no.KL7BM5181 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries. A sum of Rs.40,00,000/- was claimed as compensation under various heads.

3. The first respondent/owner-cum-driver remained ex parte.

4. The second respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the existence of a valid policy in respect of the offending vehicle but denied negligence on the part of the first respondent. 5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A14 were marked on the side of the claim petitioner. No documentary evidence was adduced by the second respondent/insurer.

6. The Tribunal on consideration of the documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the first respondent/owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of Rs.18,85,642/- together with interest. Aggrieved by the Award, the claim petitioner has come up in appeal.

7. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court.

8. Heard both sides

9. The award of compensation by the Tribunal under the following heads are challenged by the claim petitioner - Notional income It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that the latter, a 62-year-old coolie, was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal fixed the notional income at Rs.10,000/- only, which is low in the light of the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd, (2011) 13 SCC 236.

9.1. In the light of the dictum in Ramachandrappa (Supra), I find that fixing the notional income of the claim petitioner at Rs.11,500/- would be just and reasonable.

Loss of earnings

10. The materials on record show that following injuries were sustained by the claim petitioner:

“1) right side acute subdural hemorrhage

2) bilateral frontal and right temporal hemorrhage contusions

3) multiple skull fractures

4) right maxillary sinus fracture.”

He was hospitalized in two spells for a total period of 39 days. In the light of the nature of injuries, period of hospitalization and the surgical interventions to which he was subjected to, I find that he can be granted compensation towards loss of earnings for a period of 3 months, which is Rs.34,500/- (11,500 x 3 months).

Percentage of disability

11. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that in the light of Ext.A7 disability certificate, the Tribunal ought to have fixed the functional disability as 100%. However, the disability has been fixed at 65% which is incorrect and hence needs to be enhanced. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the second respond