The court determined negligence in the motor vehicle accident and revised compensation based on loss of earnings and injuries sustained.

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.2886/2016 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 29/05/2019. 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

02/10/2016 at about 08:00 p.m, while she was pillion riding on a motor cycle through the Mattancherry – Ernakulam road, autorickshaw bearing registration no.KL-07/AB-825 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner and in great speed dashed against the motor cycle, whereby she sustained grievous injuries.

3. The first respondent driver filed written statement contending that the accident was due to the negligence of the husband of the claim petitioner, who was riding the motor cycle.

4. The second respondent/insurer filed written statement raising the following contentions – The amount claimed is excessive. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motor cycle, who had no valid driving licence. There was no negligence on the part of the first respondent and so the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the same.

5. Before the Tribunal, the claim petitioner was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A6 were marked. No oral or 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 first respondent-driver of the offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹6,03,300/- 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.

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 claim petitioner, a 56 year old lady was engaged in making confectioneries when the incident occurred on 02/10/2016. 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 was liable to be fixed at ₹10,500/-. Therefore, he submits that the notional income fixed by the Tribunal is quite low, which requires to be enhanced. This submission is not opposed by the learned counsel for the second respondent/insurer. Therefore, in the light of the dictum in Ramachandrappa (Supra), the notional income of the claim petitioner is fixed as ₹10,500/- per month.

Loss of earning An amount of ₹50,000/- was claimed. The Tribunal granted an amount of ₹32,000/-, that is, loss of earnings for four months. This is again challenged to be on the lower side. Ext.A4 wound certificate shows that the following are the injuries sustained- 1. Head injury.

2. Right clavicle fracture.

3. Nasal and right ear bleeding.

Ext.A5 discharge summary shows that she was hospitalised for a period of 26 days. Therefore, taking into account the nature of injuries and the period of hospitalisation, in all probability she might have been unable to work for a period of about six months. Therefore, the amount of compensation she would be entitled to is ₹10,500/- x 6 months = ₹63,000/-

Compensation for los