The court established principles for determining compensation based on notional income and assessed various heads of damages following established precedents.

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.194/2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottappalam (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 24/01/2020. The respondents herein are the respondents 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

07/10/2017 at 17:55 hours while he was riding motorcycle bearing registration no.KL-50-C-3871 through Mundur – Mannarkkad road and when he reached place by name Mundur, motorcycle bearing registration no.KL-9-V-3503 ridden by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries. 3. The first respondent-rider and the second respondent-owner remained ex parte.

4. The third respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the policy but denying negligence on the part of the first respondent. Averments in the petition regarding age, occupation, monthly income, injuries sustained, treatment underwent, expenses met and the disability were also disputed. The amount of compensation claimed under various heads was contended to be exorbitant.

5. Before the Tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A8 were marked on the side of the claim petitioner. No oral or 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 first respondent-rider of the offending motorcycle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹3,12,790/- together with interest @ 7.5% 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 The learned counsel for the claim petitioner submits that the latter, a 27 year old man was an agriculturist earning ₹15,000/- per month. But the Tribunal fixed the notional income at ₹8,000/- only, which was quite low and hence 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 , I find that the notional income can be fixed as ₹11,000/-.

Loss of earnings An amount of ₹90,000/- was claimed. The Tribunal granted an amount of ₹24,000/-, which is loss of earnings for a period of three months. Ext.A3 wound certificate and Ext.A5 discharge summary reveal that the following injuries were sustained by the claim petitioner-

“Comminuted volar barton fracture left side, fracture base of 3rd and 4^th metacarpal right side, medial collateral ligament sprain right knee (grade II) and fracture to 1^st Phalanx to the head of 4^th toe.”

Hence, in all probability he might have been unable to work for a period of about 5 months. Therefore, loss of earnings for a period of five months can be granted under this head. (₹11,000/- x 5 =

₹55,000/-)

Transportation expenses An amount of ₹10,000/- was claimed. The Tribunal granted an amount of ₹1,000/-. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that the distance between the hospital and the residence of the claim petitioner is 45 km and therefore, the amount awarded is quite low.

Per contra, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that the amount awarded is rea