IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN MONDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF JULY 2024 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1946 MACA NO. 472 OF 2019 OPMV NO.76 OF 2014 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

H.H.JAYALAKSHMI AGED 54 YEARS W/O. PANEERSELVAM, HOUSE NO.10/1114A, DHOBI STREET, VELI, FORT KOCHI, KOCHI - 682 001.

BY ADVS.

RAHUL SASI SMT.NEETHU PREM RESPONDENT/4TH RESPONDENT:

THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD, ERNAKULAM - 682 011.

BY ADVS.

SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.)

SMT.K.S.SANTHI SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 01.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed by the claimant in OP(MV)

No.76 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. The respondent herein was the fourth respondent before the tribunal.

2. The case of the appellant/claimant is that on

05.10.2013 at 2.30 pm, while she was pillion riding on a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.TN 02 AS 8440 from west to east through Navy Nagar Quarters road at Mundamveli, an autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL 43 E 772 owned and driven by the first and second respondents respectively, hit against the motorcycle, whereby she sustained serious injuries. She approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹10,00,000/-.

3. The first respondent entered appearance and respondents 2 and 3 were set ex parte before the tribunal. The fourth respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing liability and the quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, the evidence consists of documentary evidence as Exts.A1 to A12 on the side of the appellant/claimant. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of ₹5,14,925/- as compensation under different heads against the fourth 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 for the respondent insurer.

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

5.1. Notional income - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was a tailor and was earning an amount of ₹10,000/- per month, however, the tribunal has fixed the notional monthly income of the appellant at ₹6,500/-. As per the decision in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236], the notional monthly income of the appellant ought to have been fixed at ₹9,000/-. Accordingly, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), I deem it appropriate to fix the notional monthly income of the appellant at ₹9,000/-.

5.2. Loss of earnings - Since the notional monthly income of the appellant is refixed at ₹9,000/-, compensation towards loss of earnings for six months has to be recalculated, which would come to ₹54,000/-. Thus, after deducting the amount of ₹39,000/- already awarded by the tribunal towards loss of earnings, the appellant will be entitled to get an additional compensation of ₹15,000/-.

5.3. Permanent disability - On a perusal of the award, the tribunal has found the age of the appellant to be 53 years and 9 months. It is seen that future prospects of 15% is taken for awarding compensation towards permanent disability instead of 10%. Since the appellant is aged more than 50 years, 10% future prospects can be added to the notional income. Thus, adding 10% future prospects to ₹9,000/-, being the refixed notional income, ₹9,900/- can be considered for assessing compensation towards permanent disability. Accordingly, following the decisions reported in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi