Court clarified compensation calculations for injuries, focusing on income assessment, pain, and disability, leading to a modified total compensation award.

JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by appellant/claimant in O.P (MV) No.1340 of

2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the appellant/claimant, on 24.09.2004 while he was traveling in a car bearing Reg.No.KLI/4040, a lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-9/A-4848 driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the car. Thus the appellant sustained serious injuries. He approached the tribunal claiming a total ₹

compensation of 4,32,500/-.

3. Respondents 1,2 and 3 are the owner, driver and the insurer of the offending vehicle respectively. The respondents 1 and 2 did not contest the case. The respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. Exts.A1 to A31 were marked and PWs1 to 3 were examined. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, found that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the offending vehicle and the insurance company being the insurer was found liable to pay the compensation. The tribunal awarded a ₹

total compensation of 27,550/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurance company.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant claims enhancement mainly under the following heads :-

Notional income :- The learned counsel for the appellant relying on Ext.A27, submitted that the claimant was working abroad and was earning 1000 Dirham per month. However the said document was not attested by the embassy. However, the certificate reveals that he was working abroad. No other supporting evidence has been produced by the appellant to prove his avocation or income. He was aged 20 years at the time of the accident. Considering the afore fact that he was ₹

working abroad, I find that an amount of 6,000/- can be fixed as his income. The learned counsel further submitted that even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236] , the income of a ₹

coolie for an accident which occured in 2004 is fixed as 4,500/- and sought for enhancement of income. Since he is working abroad, I find ₹

it appropriate to re-fix the income as 6,000/-.

Loss of earnings :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that for awarding compensation under the head loss of earnings, the tribunal had taken only a period of one month. However, on a perusal of the discharge summary, Ext.A21 it is seen that on 03.02.2005, discectomy was done on the appellant. Considering the afore facts, I find that a period of eight months can be taken for awarding compensation under the afore head. Thus, the appellant will ₹

be entitled to get a total compensation of 48,000/-. The tribunal had ₹

awarded an amount of 3,000/-. Thus, there will be an additional ₹

amount of 45,000/-.

₹

Pain and sufferings :- Though an amount of 30,000/- was ₹

claimed, the tribunal has awarded only an amount of 10,000/-. Considering the fact that he had sustained L3 compression fracture, post traumatic abrasion fracture and the disectomy of L4-5, L-5, I find ₹

that a total amount of 20,000/- can be awarded under the afore ₹

head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of 10,000/- under the afore head.

Loss of amenities :- On a perusal of the award, it is seen that ₹

the tribunal has awarded an amount of 5,000/- towards loss of amenities. Considering the nature of the age and the injuries ₹

sustained, I am inclined to grant an additional amou