The court ruled to enhance compensation by correcting the notional income and permanent disability assessments from previous Tribunal errors.

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.441/2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 20/09/2019. The respondent herein is the third respondent 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 15/12/2016 at about 08:30 a.m., while he was riding motorcycle bearing registration no.KL-45-H-1831 through Irinjalakuda – Kodungallur public road and when he reached at Karupadana Palli nada, car bearing registration no.KL-07-T-777 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries.

3. The first respondent-owner and the second respondent-driver of the offending vehicle remained ex-parte.

4. The third respondent-insurer filed written statement admitting the policy but denying negligence on the part of the second respondent. The compensation claimed under various heads was contended to be exorbitant.

5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A12 were marked on the side of the claim petitioner. Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the third respondent.

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 vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹2,26,600/- together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the 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 ₹15,000/- fixed by the Tribunal is against the dictum in Raju Sebastian v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2021 (5) KHC 662 wherein the income after retirement of the claimant was fixed as half of the monthly income that he was drawing while in service. Ext.A11 certificate will show that he was earning ₹52,128/- per month and therefore the Tribunal was not justified in fixing the notional income at ₹15,000/- in the light of the dictum in Raju Sebastian (Supra), goes the argument.

9.1. Ext.A11 shows that the claim petitioner was drawing ₹52,128/- as his salary. In the light of the judgment dated 18/08/2025 of this Court in MACA No.576 of 2020 ( Surendran v. Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. ), I find that the notional income for the period after his retirement can be fixed as ₹26,000/- per month.

Loss of earnings

10. An amount of ₹3,00,000/- was claimed. The Tribunal did not grant any amount under this head. Hence the learned counsel for the claim petitioner submitted that the Tribunal went wrong in not awarding any amount when evidence on record shows that he was on leave for three months. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent-insurer that there is no evidence to show that there was any loss of earnings and hence the Tribunal was right in not awarding any amount. Therefore, no interference is called for.

10.1. It is true that the claim petitioner was in service and there is no evidence to show that there was any loss of income while he was in servi