The court emphasized appropriate considerations for notional income and multipliers in awarding compensation, necessitating adjustments based on judicial precedents for fair assessments.

JUDGMENT :

C.S. SUDHA, J.

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) has been filed by the claim petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.1142/2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 03/01/2020. The respondents herein are the respondents 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 15/01/2013 at about 05:30 a.m., while he was standing at Amballur junction on the extreme western side of Pudukkad-Paliyekkara NH 47, car bearing registration No.KL-05-V-9255 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked her down, as a result of which she sustained grievous injuries.

3. The first respondent/owner and the second respondent/driver remained ex parte.

4. The third respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the policy but denying negligence on the part of the second respondent/driver of the offending car. It was also contended that the amount claimed was excessive.

5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A6 were marked on the side of the claim petitioner. Exts.B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the respondents.

6. The Tribunal on consideration of the documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the second respondent/driver of the offending car resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹5,54,730/- together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation along with proportionate costs. 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 is challenged by the claim petitioner:

Notional income - It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that the notional income of ₹5,500/- fixed for a 59 year old coolie is on the lower side and hence, the same needs to be appropriately enhanced.

9.1. Going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Co. Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236, the income of a coolie in the year 2013 is liable to be fixed at ₹9,000/- per month. It is true that the claim petitioner has only claimed an amount of ₹7,500/- as income. However, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the notional income can be fixed as ₹9,000/- per month.

Multiplier

10. The claim petitioner was 59 year old at the time of the incident and therefore, the correct multiplier is '9' and not '8' as taken by the Tribunal. Therefore, the multiplier to be applied shall be '9'.

The percentage of disability

11. Ext.A5 disability Certificate reads thus:

“DISABILITY CERTIFICATE

Mrs Rukmani, 67 years, Inchody (H) Kaloor PO, Thrissur was examined on 12/03/2019. As per treatment reports (discharge card and wound certificate), the clinet was involved in an alleged history of RTA. Treated at Jubilee Mission Medical College and research institute, DOA: 15/01/2013, DOD: 11/02/2013,H.P No: S044798.

Injuries

•Fracture right clavicle

•Fracture both bones right forearm

•Fracture right tibia

•Fracture right middle finger

•Fracture left superior pubic rami

•Ascites and pleural effusion right with partial collapse of lung Treatment details

ORIF Clavicle

•ILN right tibia

•ORIF right forearm

•Removal implant of right ulna followed by nailing

•Laprotomy On Ex