Compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act must be just and reasonable, reflecting the victim's notional income and future prospects; exaggerated amounts for certain heads like pain and suffering are warranted based on judicial precedents.

JUDGMENT :

M.B. Snehalatha, J.

Claimants in OP(MV) No.710/2011 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mavelikkara [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’] have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2. The O.P was filed by the claimants seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act .

3. The parties in this appeal shall be referred to by their rank in O.P.

4. On 22.03.2011 at 10.30 a.m, the victim, Unnikrishnan Nair who was a pedestrian was knocked down by a mini bus bearing registration No.KL-2-E-14 near TB Junction, Karuvatta. In the accident, the victim sustained serious injuries. Though he was taken to hospital and undergone treatment for 38 days, at Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha, he succumbed to the injuries on 29.04.2011. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of R1, who was the driver of the mini bus. R2 is the RC owner of the mini bus and R3 is the insurer of the said vehicle.

5. Before the Tribunal, respondents 1 and 2 remained absent and they were set ex parte.

6. R3/insurance company filed written statement denying the negligence on the part of R1 and also stating that there was negligence on the part of the deceased. Though R3 admitted the existence of a valid policy, it was contended that the mini bus had no valid permit and fitness certificate at the time of the accident; and thus R2 violated the conditions of policy and therefore, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify R2.

7. By the impugned award, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.7,72,187/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.

8. Alleging that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meager and inadequate, claimants have come in appeal seeking enhanced compensation.

9. Heard both sides. Records perused.

10. Admittedly, the victim Unnikrishnan Nair met with a motor vehicle accident on 22.03.2011 and he succumbed to the injuries on 29.04.2011, while undergoing treatment. It is in evidence that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of R1, who was the driver of the mini bus bearing registration No.KL-2-E-14. It is also an admitted case that the offending vehicle had valid insurance coverage with R3 insurance company.

11. It is contended by the learned counsel for the claimants that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meager; that the notional income taken by the Tribunal for assessing the compensation is very low; that the compensation awarded under all heads are on a lower side and inadequate and it is not a just and reasonable compensation as mandated by law.

12. Let us see whether the claimants are entitled to any enhanced compensation and if so, what is the quantum.

13. The case of the claimants is that the victim was a coolie by occupation and he was earning Rs.9,000/- per month. In the absence of any materials to prove the income, the learned Tribunal fixed the notional income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month, which according to the learned counsel for the claimants is very low.

14. The learned counsel for the claimants contended that going by the guidelines in the decision of the Apex Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [ (2011) 13 SCC 236 ], the Tribunal ought to have taken at least Rs.8,000/- per month as notional income.

15. In Ramachandrappa [cited supra], the Hon’ble Supreme Court fixed the notional income of a coolie worker in the year 2004 as Rs.4,500/- per month. In Syed Sadiq and Others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co.Lt