The court reaffirmed the principle of just compensation in personal injury claims, adjusting awards for income and disability with clear standards based on established precedents.

JUDGMENT :

Shoba Annamma Eapen, J.

This appeal is filed by the claimant and the legal heirs of the claimant in O.P (MV) No.383 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda. The respondents herein are the respondents before the Tribunal.

2. According to the appellants/claimants, on 12.12.2011 at about 5.15 a.m., while the original claimant was travelling in a tempo traveller bearing registration No.KL-13-V-1668 along NH 17 road, due to the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent, driver of the tempo traveller, it collided with a Tata Sumo bearing registration No.KL-43-2810 while trying to overtake a car, and as a result, the original claimant sustained serious injuries. The original claimant approached the Tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹10,05,000/-. During the pendency of the appeal, the original claimant succumbed to the said injuries on 27.12.2020 and the legal heirs are impleaded as supplemental appellants 2 to 5 in the appeal as per order dated 9/04/2021 in I.A.No.1/2021.

3. Though notice was served on the respondents, the first and second respondents, who were the owner and the driver of the tempo traveller respectively remained absent and were set ex parte before the Tribunal. Respondents four to six were the owner, driver and the insurer of the tata sumo respectively. Respondents three and six, the insurer of the tempo traveller as well as the tata sumo, filed written statements admitting the insurance policy but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. The fourth respondent filed a written statement, admitting the ownership of the tata sumo and the fifth respondent filed a written statement admitting that he was the driver of the Tata sumo. He contended that he had a valid driving licence and badge to drive the vehicle during the relevant time of accident. Before the Tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A15 were marked. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, found that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the second respondent and awarded a sum of ₹3,11,660/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs against the third respondent being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, have come up in appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurance company.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants claims enhancement mainly under the following heads:-

I. Notional Income

The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the original claimant was a coconut climber at the time of the accident and had claimed a notional income of ₹4,000/- per month and the Tribunal had taken the same as his income while awarding compensation. 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 of a coolie ought to have been taken at ₹8,000, since the accident is of the year 2011 and sought for an enhancement of the income fixed. The learned standing counsel for the insurance company, on the other hand, submitted that he had claimed only an amount of ₹4,000/-. Though the income claimed by the appellants is only ₹4,000/-, in order to award a just and reasonable compensation and following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), I find it appropriate to re-fix the notional monthly income at ₹8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand Only).

II. Loss of earnings

The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal h