The Court has authority under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act to enhance compensation based on reasonable assessments of loss, pain, and suffering sustained due to an accident.

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.1446/2017 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 03/04/2019. The sole respondent herein is the second 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 14/05/2017 at about 02:00 p.m., while she was travelling on motorcycle bearing registration no.KL41G5403 along the Edappally-Aluva road and when she reached near Appolo Tyres company, car bearing registration no.KL7BK2874 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked her down as a result of which she ₹

sustained grievous injuries. A sum of 4,00,000/- was claimed as compensation under various heads.

3. The second 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 first respondent/driver. The age, occupation, income, injuries sustained and the amounts claimed under various heads were disputed.

4. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A9 were marked on the side of the claim petitioner. No evidence was adduced by the second respondent/insurer.

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

the incident and hence awarded an amount of 2,00,630/- together with interest @ 9% 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.

6. 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.

7. Heard both sides

8. 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 22 year old lady, was a tailor earning an amount of ₹

15,000/- per month at the time of the incident. However, the ₹

Tribunal, fixed the notional income at 12,000/- only, which needs to be appropriately enhanced. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the second respondent/insurer that a reasonable amount has been fixed by the Tribunal as notional income and therefore, no further enhancement is called for.

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 is a tailor is not seen disputed. Therefore, taking into account the fact that she is a tailor and a housewife, I find that fixing the notional ₹

income at 13,000/- would be just and reasonable.

Loss of earnings The materials on record show that the following injuries were sustained by the claim petitioner:

“1) shock, head injury, traumatic brain injury

2) left parietal subarachnoid hemorrhage

3) loss of consciousness

4) soft tissue swelling overlying the right temporal parietal region.

5) abrasion over right side of face and chin

6) abrasion right hand

7) abrasion left leg.

8) haematoma 3 x 3 cm on fronto parietal scalp

9) multiple abrasions over both upper limbs

10) abrasion right foot”

Hence, in all probability, she might have been unable to work for a period of 8 months. Therefore, she can be granted compensation towards loss of earn