Court modified compensation based on notional income, applying legal principles from precedent.

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 claim petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.425/2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vatakara, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 06/03/2020. The respondents herein are the respondents in the original 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 04/11/2017 at about 08:00 a.m. at Kayannabazar, the 2^nd respondent driver of auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KL-56-D-6536 in a rash and negligent manner reversed the vehicle knocking him down as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries. A sum of ₹4,00,000/- 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 policy, but denying negligence on the part of the second respondent/driver. The age, occupation and income were disputed. It was also contended that the amount claimed was excessive.

5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A8 series were marked on the side of the claim petitioner. Ext.C1 is the certificate of permanent disability. No documentary evidence was adduced 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 ₹2,76,900/- together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation 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 head is challenged by the claim petitioner -

Notional income It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that the latter, a coolie aged 48 years was earning ₹24,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal granted only an amount of ₹10,250/- which needs to be appropriately enhanced.

In the light of the dictum in Ramachandrappa v.

Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 13 SCC 236, the notional income of the claim petitioner can be fixed at ₹11,000/-.

10. The impugned Award is modified to the following extent :