The compensation for accident-related injuries should reflect reasonable estimations of the claimant's earning capacity and circumstances of the incident.

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.397/2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Wayanad, Kalpetta, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 21/11/2019. The respondents herein are respondents 1 to 3 respectively 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 07/05/2017 at about 09:30 a.m., while she was pillion riding on motorcycle bearing registration no.KL73A7933 driven by the second respondent from the place by name Kotanadu to Moolankavu and when she reached the place by name Kappistore, the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner applied sudden brake as a result of which the vehicle overturned and the claim petitioner ₹

fell down and sustained grievous injuries. A sum of 5,00,000/-

was claimed as compensation under various heads.

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

4. The third respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the existence of a valid policy in respect of the offending vehicle but denied negligence on the part of the second respondent. It was contended that the compensation claimed was quite excessive.

5. Before the Tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A10 were marked on the side of the claim petitioner. No documentary evidence was adduced by the third respondent.

6. The Tribunal on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the second respondent/rider of the offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an ₹

amount of 2,62,000/- 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 lady, was a tailor earning 20,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal has fixed the notional income at ₹

8,000/-, which is quite low and hence the same may be reasonably enhanced.

Going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd , (2011) 13 SCC 236, the notional income of even a coolie in the year 2017 was ₹

liable to be fixed at 11,000/-. The fact that the claim petitioner was a tailor is not seen disputed. That being the position, I find ₹

that fixing the notional income at 13,000/- would be just and reasonable.

Loss of earnings ₹

It is pointed out that though an amount of 1,20,000/- was claimed under this head, the Tribunal has granted an amount of ₹

48,000/-. Going by the materials on record, the claim petitioner is seen to have sustained the following injuries:

“1) fracture 2^nd metacarpal left

2) multiple bilateral rib fracture right 1, 5, 6, 7 and left 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ribs with pheumothorax”

In the light of the injuries sustained and the period of hospitalization of 5 days, in all probability, she must have been unable to work for a period of 8 months. Therefore, she can be granted compensation towards loss of earnings for a period of 8 ₹

months which is 1,04,000/- (13,000 x 8).

The learned counsel for the claim petitioner has also challenged the compensation awarded under various other heads. However, on going through the i