The quantum of compensation awarded in a motor accident case should be reasonable and just, taking into account the income, disability, and other relevant factors of the injured person.

Headnote:
NEGLIGENCE - MOTOR ACCIDENT - QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION - [The court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, considering the appellant's income, disability, and other relevant factors.]
Fact of the Case:

The appellant sustained injuries in a motor accident due to the negligence of the first respondent. The second respondent was the insurer of the lorry involved in the accident. The appellant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for his injuries.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Tribunal had erred in not fixing the appellant's income and in not awarding any amount towards loss due to disability. The court also found that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of by-stander expenses and extra nourishment were on the lower side.
Issues: 1. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was reasonable and just.2. Whether the Tribunal erred in not fixing the appellant's income.3. Whether the Tribunal erred in not awarding any amount towards loss due to disability.4. Whether the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of by-stander expenses and extra nourishment were on the lower side.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Tribunal had erred in not fixing the appellant's income and in not awarding any amount towards loss due to disability. The court also held that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of by-stander expenses and extra nourishment were on the lower side.2. The court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011) 13 SCC 236] to fix the notional income of a coolie worker in the year 2004 at Rs. 4500/- per month.3. The court also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar [2011 (1) KLT 620 SC] to hold that what needs to be looked into in a case of injury, is the functional disability of the injured/claimant.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal in part and enhanced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal by a further amount of Rs.62,150/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

JUDGMENT

The appellant was the petitioner in OP(MV)

No.2000/2005 on the file of the II Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. The respondents in the appeal were the respondents before the Tribunal.

2. The appellant had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the injuries that he sustained in an accident on 19.04.2004. It was his case that, on the aforesaid date, while he was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No. KL-11-S-1852 along the Kallai railway station road, a mini lorry bearing registration No. KL- 11 C – 8713 (lorry), driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle of the appellant. The appellant was thrown on the road and sustained serious injuries. He was treated at the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode and at the Kasthurba Hospital, Manipal for a period of 23 days in four spells. The appellant was a coolie worker by profession and earning a monthly income of Rs.3000/. The lorry was also owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent. Hence, the appellant claimed a compensation of Rs.2,89,000/- from the respondents, which claim was limited to Rs.2,00,000/-.

3. The first respondent did not contest the proceeding.

4. The second respondent had filed a written statement admitting that the lorry had a valid insurance coverage. The second respondent disputed the age, income and occupation of the appellant. It is also contended that the compensation claimed was excessive.

5. The appellant got himself examined as PW1 and marked Exhibits A1 to A9 in evidence. The disability certificate issued by the Medical Board was marked as Exhibit X1. The respondents did not let in any evidence.

6. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, allowed the claim petition in part, by permitting the appellant to recover from the second respondent an amount of Rs.66,032/- with interest and a cost of Rs.300/-.

7. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner is in appeal.

8. Heard; Sri. Jacob Abraham, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner and Smt. Sarah Selvi,the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/insurer.

9. The point that emanates for consideration in this appeal is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and just.

Negligence and Liability

10. Exhibit A1 FIR and Exhibit A2 Scene mahazar substantiates that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the first respondent. Admittedly, the second respondent was the insurer of the lorry. The respondents have not let in any evidence to controvert the assertions in the claim petition or Exhibits A1 and A2. Therefore, the second respondent is to indemnify the liability of the first respondent arising out of the accident.

Income

11. The appellant had claimed that he was a coolie worker by profession and earning a monthly income of Rs.3000/-. The Tribunal, for the reason that the appellant had not sustained any loss of earnings, did not fix the income of the appellant. Instead, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.66,032/- under different heads, including pain and sufferings and loss of amenities. The course adopted by the Tribunal is erroneous and wrong.

12. In Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011) 13 SCC 236], the Honourable Supreme Court has fixed the notional income of a coolie worker in the year

2004 at Rs. 4500/- per month.

13. Following the yardstick in the afore-cited decisions and considering the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2004, and that the appellant had claimed that he was earning a monthly income at Rs.3000/-, I fix the notional monthly income of the appellant at Rs.3000/-.

Loss of earnings

14. It is proved through Exhibit A4 wound certificate and Exhibit X1 disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, that the appellant had suffered a bicondylar fra

Click Here to Read the rest of this document