The appeal court modified the compensation awarded to reflect adequate compensation for pain, suffering, and economic losses based on legal standards.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No. 5/2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Paravur, is the appellant herein. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal).

2. The petitioner filed the above O.P. under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 27.11.2012. According to the petitioner, on 27.11.2012 at about 11.45 a.m., while he was riding scooter bearing reg.no.KL-42/C-8250 through container road from west to east direction, a car bearing reg.no.KL-5/AB-9278 driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the scooter of the petitioner and as a result of the accident, the petitioner sustained injuries.

3. The 1^st respondent is the owner , the 2^nd respondent is the driver and 3^rd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. According to the petitioner, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. is Rs.2,12,000/- limited to Rs.1,00,000/-.

4. The insurance company filed a written statement, admitting the accident as well as policy, but disputing the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.

5. The evidence in the case consists of the documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A2 and C1. No evidence was adduced by the respondents.

6. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal found negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, awarded a total compensation of Rs.30,330/- rounded to Rs.30,500/- and directed the insurer to pay the same.

7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner preferred this appeal.

8. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following:

Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

9. Heard Sri.Reji George, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Smt.P.A.Raziya, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid insurance policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is regarding the income of the petitioner as fixed by the Tribunal. According to him, the petitioner was self employed, earning Rs.9000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.7000./-. The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable.

11. As per the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236] , the notional income of a coolie, in the year 2012 will come to Rs.8500/-. Since the petitioner could not prove his job or income as claimed in the OP, in the light of a dictum laid down in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court inRamachandrappa (supra), his notional income is liable to be fixed as that of a coolie, at Rs.8500/-.

12. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries: • Pain and tenderness on low back, abrasion forearm, fracture left transverse process of L2, L3, L4 vertebra .

13. In this case the petitioner has not produced any disability certificate and as such the petitioner is not entitled to get any compensation on the head 'loss of disability'.

14. Towards loss of earning, the tribunal has awarded only Rs.7000/- being the income for 1 month @Rs.7000/-. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained