The court affirmed the principle that compensation should reflect actual income loss and necessary charges due to negligence, modifying the initial award accordingly.

J U D G M E N T

This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) by the claim petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.725/2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 30/10/2018. The sole respondent herein is the third 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 claim petitioner, on 13/01/2016 at about 03:30 a.m., while he was travelling in mini lorry bearing registration no.KL7BQ192 driven by the second respondent through Kalamassery-Cheranalloor road, the latter in a rash and negligent manner applied sudden brake as a result of which the claim petitioner sustained grievous injuries. The incident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent. A ₹

sum of 6,00,000/- was claimed as compensation under various heads.

3. The first respondent/owner and the second respondent/driver remained ex parte.

4. The third respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the existence of a valid policy in respect of the offending vehicle. It was contended that the incident occurred due to the negligence of the claim petitioner.

5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A12 were marked on the side of the claim petitioner. No documentary evidence was produced by the respondents.

6. The Tribunal on consideration of the documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the second respondent/driver of the offending vehicle resulting in ₹

the incident and hence awarded an amount of 4,02,764/- together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the claim petitioner has come up in appeal.

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 award of compensation by the Tribunal under the following heads are challenged by the claim petitioner -

Notional income It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that the latter, a 25 year old man, was conducting tender coconut ₹

business and earning 15,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal, ₹

fixed the notional income at 9,000/-, which, even going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd , (2011) 13 SCC 236, is very low. It is also pointed out that, at the time of the incident, the claim petitioner was travelling in the goods vehicle along with the goods, that is, tender coconuts, which would establish his case that he was doing business in tender coconuts. Hence, the notional income needs to be appropriately enhanced.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that an ₹

amount of 12,000/- can be fixed as the notional income of the claim petitioner.

Attendan t charge s It is brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that as per Exts.A7 and A10 discharge summaries, the claim petitioner was hospitalized for a total period of 15 days in two different spells. However, the Tribunal has granted attendant charges for 11 days only. Hence, the same may be granted for 15 days.

Exts.A7 and A10 substantiate the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner and hence he will be ₹

entitled to attendant charges at the rate of 500 per day for a period of 15 days.

The learned counsel for the claim petitioner also advanced arguments to the effect that the amount of compensation awarded under pain and suffering and loss of amenities is on