JUDGMENT

Claimant in O.P(MV) No.816/2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Manjeri [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal] has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2. Appellant’s case in O.P(MV) No.816/2011 is that on 05.08.2010, while he was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-10-G-6196 through the public road, a mini lorry bearing registration No.KL-11-Y-5262 driven by R1 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger a human life hit on his motorcycle and he sustained injuries in the said accident. R2 is the RC owner and R3 is the insurer of the offending lorry.

3. By the impugned award, a sum of ₹2,94,059/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition was awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal further ordered that as the appellant/claimant was not wearing any helmet at the time of the accident, there was contributory negligence on his part and therefore 15% of the compensation is to be deducted from the total amount. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, appellant/claimant has come in appeal contending that the award of the Tribunal is inadequate; that it is not a just compensation as mandated by law.

4. Both sides heard. Records perused.

5. There is no dispute over the fact that the appellant met with an accident on 05.08.2010 while he was riding a motorcycle. Existence of a valid insurance policy of the offending vehicle stands admitted. It also stands proved that accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of R1 who was the driver of the offending lorry bearing registration No.KL-11-Y-5262.

6. Now let us see whether the appellant/claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation.

7. According to the appellant/claimant he is a Madrassa teacher and during the period of accident he was earning a monthly income of ₹9,000/-.

8. The notional income taken by the Tribunal for assessing compensation is ₹4,000/- per month. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contended that the monthly income notionally taken by the Tribunal is on a lower side. The learned counsel contended that going by the decision in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [ (2011) 13 SCC 236 )] the Tribunal ought to have taken ₹8,000/- per month as notional income.

9. In Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [ (2011) 13 SCC 236 ], the Hon’ble Supreme Court fixed the notional income of a coolie worker in the year 2004 as ₹4,500/- per month. In Syed Sadiq and Others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd. [ (2014) 2 SCC 735 ] the Hon’ble Supreme Court fixed the notional income of a vegetable vendor in the year 2006 at the rate of ₹6,500/- per month.

10. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [ (2017) 16 SCC 680 ] the Hon’ble Supreme Court has recognized the principle that there would be incremental enhancement in the case of even self-employed individuals in the unorganized sector and with respect to an unspecified job of a coolie considering the increase in cost of living and economic advancement over the years, it can be safely assumed that even a coolie worker would be eligible for incremental addition of ₹500/- in every subsequent year.

11. By following the above guidelines, this Court is of the view that the notional income of the appellant/claimant can be fixed at ₹7,500/- per month for the purpose of determining the compensation payable in the claim petition filed by him under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 .

12. Appellant’s case is that in the accident, he sustained serious injuries; that he lost t