The court established that compensation for injuries should reflect notional income and injury severity, aligning with statutory guidance and judicial precedents.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 1^st day of April, 2025

The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.727/2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kollam, is the appellant herein. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal).

2. The petitioner filed the above O.P. under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 05.11.2008. According to the petitioner, on 05.11.2008 at about 12.15 p.m., while he was riding pillion on a scooter through the Kollam-Alappuzha NH road, a jeep bearing Reg.No. KRQ-4600 driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit him down and as a result of the accident, the petitioner sustained serious injuries.

3. The 1^st respondent is the owner, the 2^nd respondent is the driver and 3^rd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. According to the petitioner, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. is Rs.8,00,000/-

4. The insurance company filed a written statement, admitting the accident as well as policy, but disputing the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.

5. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimonies of PWs 1 and 2 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A15 and C1. No evidence was adduced by the respondents.

6. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal found negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 5,36,070/- and directed the insurer to pay the same.

7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner preferred this appeal.

8. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following:

Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

9. Heard Sri. Siju Kamalasanan, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Smt. S.L. Sylaja, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid insurance policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is regarding the income of the petitioner as fixed by the Tribunal. As per the claim petition, the petitioner was working as fisherman, earning Rs.4000/- per month. The Tribunal also fixed his monthly income at Rs.4000/-.

11. As per the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236] , the notional income of a coolie, in the year 2008 will come to Rs.6500/-.Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for fixing the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.6500/-. The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable. Since the notional income of a coolie, in the year 2008 will come to Rs.6500/-, in order to award just and reasonable compensation, in the light of a dictum laid down in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa (supra), the notional income of the petitioner is liable to be fixed as that of a coolie, at Rs.6500/-.

12. In the accident the petitioner sustained serious injuries. As per Ext. A7 discharge summary, the details of injury noted are:

“1. Type III-B fracture both bones.

2. (R) leg with segmental loss of tibia.

3. Oblique vertically oriented lacerated wound 25 x 10 cm on anterior aspect middle 2/3 leg exposing the contaminated crushed muscle.

4. Fracture tibia and fibula.

The crushed muscles and nonviable bone fragments removed.

Tear in the posterior tibial vessels repaired with 8-0 ethilon.

The EHC tended was repaired with 4-0 prot