Court modifies compensation awarded to accident victim, ensuring alignment with legal precedents on injury and income valuation.

JUDGMENT :

Shoba Annamma Eapen, J.

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.715 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha. The respondents herein are the respondents before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimant is that on 27.07.2013 at about 3.30 p.m., while the claimant was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KL-44/B 9529, an autorickshaw bearing Reg. No.KL-6/D 9782 driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motorcycle, whereby the claimant sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the Tribunal claiming a total  compensation of ₹3,50,000/-.

3. The first respondent, driver of the offending vehicle, remained ex parte before the tribunal. The second respondent Insurance Company filed a written statement, admitting the insurance policy, but challenging the quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal PW1 was examined and Exts. A1 to A10 were marked. 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 total compensation of ₹2,27,100/- under different heads with interest @9% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the 2^nd respondent being the insurer. Dissatis 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 insurance company.

5. The appellant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation under the following head:-

Notional income :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was working as a Supervisor in a  Construction Company and though an amount of ₹15,000/- was claimed as the monthly income of the appellant, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹5,500/-. The learned counsel further submitted that even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236] , the monthly income ought to have been taken at ₹9,000/-, since the accident is of the year 2013. It was also submitted that, as per the First Information Statement (FIS), the claimant had stated that he was working as a supervisor in a construction firm. Considering the afore facts, I find it appropriate to re-fix the monthly income at ₹10,000/-

Loss of earnings:- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has taken only a period of six months for awarding compensation under the head loss of earnings. Following are the injuries sustained by the appellant due to the accident:

i) Fracture patella.

ii) Avulsion fracture base of terminal phalanx right ring finger with mallet finger deformity.

iii) Extensive laceration dorsal aspect of right foot with segmental loss of extensor tendons and loss of skin.

iv)Multiple lacerated wounds posterior aspect of right leg over the tendo achillis.

v) Multiple abrasion right knee, right big toe, forehead and upper lip.

vi) Lacerated wound just above the right eyebrow.

Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, I find that a period of seven months can be taken for awarding compensation under the said head. Since the notional monthly income has been re-fixed at ₹10,000/-, the total compensation payable under the said head would be ₹70,000/- (10,000 x 7). The Tribunal had granted an amount of ₹33,000/- under the said head. Thus there will be an additional amount of ₹37,000/- under the afore head.

Pain and suffering :- The learned Counsel for the appellant  submitted that though an amount of ₹1,00,000/- was claimed by the appellant, the Tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹35,000/- under