The court modified the award by enhancing compensation attributed to loss of earnings, pain and suffering, and other damages while remanding future medical expenses for tribunal reconsideration, establishing principles of just compensation and appropriate interest rates.

JUDGMENT :

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J.

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.247 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mavelikkara. The respondents herein are the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the appellant/claimant, on 07.09.2001 at about 07.50 am, while the claimant was pillion riding on a motorcycle bearing reg. no. KL-4B/2492, a car bearing registration No.KRT-212 driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motorcycle. As a result, the claimant had sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹14,09,000/- limited to ₹12,00,000/-.

3. The first, second and third respondents were the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle respectively. The third respondent, insurer of the offending vehicle filed a written statement admitting the insurance policy, but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A17 and Ext.X1 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹6,27,700/- as compensation under different heads where ₹6,17,700/- is to be realised with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs and the remaining ₹10,000/- to be paid without interest if deposited within 75 days against the third respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle. If the said amount is not paid within 75 days, the award amount of ₹6,17,700/- will carry interest @12% from the date of award to the date of deposit. 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 though the appellant was the owner of the stage carriage and was a gulf returnee, the Tribunal had taken only a sum of ₹3,000/- as his monthly income. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that, as per the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236], the notional income of a coolie is fixed at ₹3,000/- per month for an accident that occurred in the year 2001 and sought for enhancement of income fixed. On a perusal of the award and the records available, the appellant has not produced any documents to prove the income at the time of accident. Considering that the appellant was the owner of the stage carriage as well as a Gulf returnee, in order to award just compensation, I find it appropriate, to refix his monthly income at ₹5,500/-.

Loss of earnings :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal has taken only a period of twelve months for awarding compensation under the said head. The learned counsel further submitted that the appellant was completely bedridden for a period of 2 years. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the insurance company submitted that there are no supporting documents to establish that the appellant was bedridden for two years, and that the Tribunal had reasonably taken the period of twelve months for awarding compensation. Following were the injuries sustained :-

“As per Ext.A4 wound certificate the petitioner had sustained contusion right hip, ankle and shoulder.

As per Ext.A6 discharge card series reveals that the petitioner had sustained fracture acetabulum, central end of clavicle right etc were treated by external fixation and K- wiring.”

Considering the nature of injuries sustained, I find that a peri