Court confirmed the need for just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, emphasizing the Tribunal's authority to assess claims accurately.

J U D G M E N T

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 (the Act) has been filed by the claimant/petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.856/2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 18/01/2018. The respondent herein is the 3^rd respondent/insurer in the petition. In this appeal, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition.

2. According to the claimant/petitioner, on

24/05/2014 at about 5:30 p.m., while he was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-40/H-5082 from west to east through the side of Kizhakkambalam-Pattimattom road and when he reached near Cheriya Canal bus stop, an ACE Goods vehicle bearing registration no.KL-40/C-7750 coming from the opposite side driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down resulting in causing serious injuries to him. The claimant/petitioner claimed a sum of ₹3,00,000/- as compensation under various heads.

3. The 1^st respondent/owner and the 2^nd respondent/driver remained ex parte.

4. The 3^rd respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the insurance of the ACE Goods vehicle, but denied any rashness or negligence on the part of the 2^nd respondent/driver. The incident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant himself. R3 also denied the claims raised under various heads.

5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A10 were marked on the side of the claimant/petitioner. Ext.C1 disability certificate issued from Govt. Medical College Hospital, Ernakulam was also marked. No documentary evidence was produced by the respondents.

6. The Tribunal on a consideration of the documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the 2^nd respondent/driver of the offending ACE Goods vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹3,24,447/- together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the claimant/petitioner has come up in appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

7. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court.

8. Heard both sides.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant challenges the impugned award under the following heads:

Notional Income It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant that even going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Allian.Co.Ltd, (2011) 13 SCC 236, the notional income of the appellant/claimant was liable to be fixed at the rate of ₹9,500/- per month. This submission is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent/insurer and hence, the impugned award will stand modified to the said extent. The notional income of the appellant/claimant shall be fixed at ₹9,500/- per month.

10. Though the learned counsel for the appellant also advances an argument that the compensation awarded under the head 'Pain & Suffering' and 'Loss of Amenities' are on the lower side. I am unable to accept the argument, as the amounts as claimed in the petition have been granted by the Tribunal. It is true that the Tribunal is empowered to award amounts which are even higher than the amounts that are claimed in the petition. However, there must be reasons for the same and it must be just compensation that has to be awarded. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the amounts awarded under the heads 'Pain and Suffering' and 'Loss of Amenities' are quite reason