The court emphasized the necessity of just compensation for injuries, allowing additional compensation for loss of earnings, pain, suffering, and loss of amenities.

JUDGMENT

The appellant was the petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.29/2008 on the files of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri. The said claim petition was submitted by him seeking compensation for the injuries sustained to him in a motor accident that occurred on 17.01.2007. According to him, while he was walking along the edge of the road at Angadipuram, he was knocked down by an ambulance driven by the 1^st respondent. The said vehicle was owned by the 2^nd respondent and it was insured with the 3^rd respondent. According to him, he was aged 51 years and was a Government School Teacher, with a monthly income of Rs.11,026/-. Due to the accident, he sustained very serious injuries and the claim petition was submitted in such circumstances.

2. The 3^rd respondent Insurance Company alone contested that matter by filing a written statement wherein they admitted the coverage of policy for the ambulance. However, they disputed the negligence as well as quantum of compensation. The Insurance Company further contended that, the driver of the vehicle was not having valid driving license and therefore, there was violation of policy conditions.

3. The evidence in this case consists of oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A6 from the side of the appellant. Ext.B1 and B2 were marked from the side of the respondents. After the trial, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 1^st respondent. It was also found that the driver of the vehicle was not having the valid driving license. The quantum of compensation was determined as Rs.97,510/-. The 3^rd respondent was directed to deposit the said amount along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation at the first instance and they were granted the right to recover the said compensation from the registered owner of the vehicle, the 2^nd respondent herein. This appeal is submitted by the appellant seeking enhancement of compensation.

4. Heard Sri.P.Samsudin, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri P.Venugopal, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent and Sri.S.K. Ajayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent.

5. The only dispute in this appeals relates to the quantum of compensation. It is seen from the award that the tribunal rejected the claim for loss of earnings and the said finding was by relying upon the statement given by PW1 to the effect that consequent to the accident, he sustained no loss of income. However, on going through the deposition of PW1, it can be seen that, what he stated was that there was no reduction in the salary due to the injuries sustained in the accident. On the other hand, he specifically asserted that he lost an amount of Rs.15,391/- due to the leave he availed. Exhibit A6 is the certificate produced by the appellant to substantiate the monthly income. It is discernible from the Ext.A6 that, the appellant had availed 15 days commuted leave for the period from 17.01.2007 to 31.01.2007 and again half pay leave on medical grounds for 28 days from 01.02.2007 to 28.02.2007. Similarly, he also availed half day leave for a further period of 12 days, during the period from 04.06.2007 to 15.06.2007. Thus, it is evident from Ext. A6 that, he suffered loss of income on account of the leave, consequent to the injuries sustained in the accident. The monthly income is Rs.11,026/- and therefore the income per day would come to Rs.424/-(11026/26). Considering the period of leave availed, the total amount of loss of income therefore would come to Rs.14,840/- (Full salary for 15 days and half salary for 40 days).

6. When moving on to the other heads, it is seen that the tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.15,000/- for pain and suffering. It is to be noted that, from Ext. A2, it can be seen that, the a