Appellate courts ensure just compensation by rectifying inadequate assessments of notional income and functional disability, utilizing binding judicial benchmarks to align awards with the severity of injuries and current economic standards.

JUDGMENT :

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J.

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P(MV) No.244 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala, seeking enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 24.01.2016, at about 7.30 p.m., while the claimant was riding a scooter bearing registration No.KL-5-AE/3766 through Chennadu – Erattupetta public road, an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-35A/9115 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the claimant and as a result, he sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-.

3. Though notice was served on the first respondent, the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle, he remained absent and was set ex parte before the tribunal. The second respondent, insurer, filed a written statement admitting the insurance policy but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A10 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, found that the accident was due to negligence on the part of the first respondent and the claimant was awarded a sum of Rs. 6,28,120/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization against the respondent – insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned standing counsel for the respondent insurer.

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

I. Notional Income

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though an amount of Rs. 20,000/- was claimed as the notional monthly income of the injured, who alleged to be engaged in real estate business, the tribunal had taken only an amount of Rs. 10,000/-. 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 notional monthly income of an ordinary worker for an accident in the year 2016 is fixed as Rs. 10,500/- and sought enhancement of the income. Following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (Supra) and in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, I find it appropriate to re-fix the notional monthly income at Rs. 10,500/-.

II. Loss of earnings

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal has granted only three months for awarding compensation under the head loss of earnings. Following are the injuries sustained by the appellant:

i) Fracture proximal phalanx middle finger

ii) Fracture (Right) index finger 

iii) Fracture both bones (Right) leg

iv) Fracture P1, P2 2^nd toe (Right)

v) Acetabulam Right hip

vi) Swelling (Right) leg 

vii) Multiple abrasions (Right) leg, (Right) knee and (Right) hand

Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, I find that a period of five months can be taken for awarding compensation under the said head. Since the notional monthly income has been re-fixed at Rs. 10,500/-, the total compensation payable under the head loss of earnings would be Rs. 52,500/- (10,500 x 5). The tribunal had already granted an amount of Rs. 30,000/- under the said head. Thus there will be an additional amount of Rs. 22,500/- under the head loss of earnings.

III. Bystander expenses

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal had granted only Rs. 5,000/- for twenty days in-patient treatment. Considering the year of accident as well as the period of hospitalisa