Tribunals cannot arbitrarily reduce disability percentages determined by medical boards and must fix notional income for skilled professionals based on a realistic assessment of their avocation to ensure just and reasonable compensation.

JUDGMENT :

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J.

This appeal is filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.29 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 25.11.2015 at about 08.40 a.m., while the claimant was driving a tipper lorry bearing registration No.KL-47-E-9234 through Ranny – Manimala public road, a private bus bearing registration No.KL-05-Q-7335 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the tipper lorry and as a result, the claimant sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs. 12,50,250/-, which is limited to Rs. 4,50,250/-.

3. Though notice was served on the first and second respondents, the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle respectively, they remained absent and were set ex parte before the tribunal. The third respondent - insurer filed a written statement, admitting the insurance policy, disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Pws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A13 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 first respondent and the appellant/claimant was awarded a sum of Rs. 2,58,760/-, as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% 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 claimant has come up in appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned standing counsel appearing 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 monthly income of the appellant, who was a heavy vehicle driver, the tribunal had taken only Rs. 10,000/-. It was further submitted that the accident occurred while the appellant was driving a lorry, which was hit by the offending bus. Considering the fact that the injured was a heavy vehicle driver, I find it appropriate to re-fix the notional monthly income at Rs. 15,000/-.

II. Loss of earnings

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

i) Contusion over left wrist

ii) Abrasion over both bones and leg

iii) Comminuted fracture dislocation left wrist dorsal barton

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. 15,000/-, the total compensation payable under the head loss of earnings would be Rs. 75,000/- (15,000 x 5). The tribunal had already granted an amount of Rs. 20,000/- under the said head. Thus there will be an additional amount of Rs. 55,000/- under the head loss of earnings.

III. Bystander expenses

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal had granted only Rs. 750/- for three days in-patient treatment. Considering the year of accident as well as the period of hospitalisation, I am inclined to take an amount of Rs. 350/- per day for three days in-patient treatment and grant compensation totalling to an amount of Rs. 1,050/-(350 x 3). Thus there will be an additional a