The court emphasized that appropriate compensation must consider actual income loss and the extent of injuries sustained.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 18^th day of June, 2024 The appellant is the victim of a road traffic accident which had occurred on 12.10.2010 when the van in which the appellant was travelling as a salesman, hit on the rear side of another van. As a result of the accident, the appellant's van capsized and he sustained the following injuries;

(i) Crush lacerated injury on the dorsum of the left foot 10x5x3 cm severely contaminated with fore eyes boler insite.

(ii) Crepitus at MTP base level deformity +

Pain left leg.

(iii) Type III B compound fracture-dislocation left foot with compound comminuted fracture cuboid with bone loss.

2. The appellant thereupon approached the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. In his claim petition, the appellant contended that at the time of accident, he was aged 27 and was working a Salesman in a private establishment on a monthly salary of Rs.7,606/-. In order to prove his salary, the appellant produced Ext.A11 certificate. The Tribunal refused to act upon Ext.A11 certificate on the premise that the document was not properly proved and took the appellant's monthly salary as Rs.4,000/-. By the impugned award, the Tribunal fixed the total compensation as Rs.1,14,250/-.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that in the light of Ext.A11 certificate, the Tribunal grossly erred in unilaterally reducing the monthly salary to Rs.4,000/-. It is contended that even if the notional income is taken following the dictum in Ramachandrappa v Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd [(2011) 13 SCC 236] , the notional monthly income would be Rs.7,500/-. The other challenge against the award is on the ground that the Tribunal should have granted loss of earnings for at least six months and more amount ought to have been granted for pain and suffering.

4. Learned Counsel for the Insurer submitted that the Tribunal was justified in refusing to act upon Ext.A11 since the salary certificate was not proved by examining the author of the document. According to the Counsel, reasonable compensation has been granted under all heads and in the event of this Court enhancing the compensation, interest should not be awarded for the 371 days of delay in filing the appeal.

5. Apart from the question whether the salary of the appellant should have been decided on the basis of Ext.A11, I find substantial force in the contention that even going by Ramachandrappa (supra), the notional income ought to have been taken as Rs.7,500/-. The appellant having suffered crush lacerated injury on dorsum of the left foot, his movements would have been severely affected. Hence, on a reasonable assumption, the appellant would not have been able to work as a Salesman at least for a period of four months. It is also pertinent to note that in Ext.A6 wound certificate itself the doctor has mentioned about the pain suffered by the appellant. The nature of the injuries including crepitus at MTP base level deformity, would have caused substantial pain and suffering to him. Hence, the compensation on that head is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-.

6. Based on the above discussion, the compensation under the above heads is recalculated as under;