An injured party's compensation must reflect realistic income estimations and severity of injuries, ensuring adequate remuneration for loss endured.

J U D G M E N T

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) has been filed by the claim petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.980/13 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 31/05/2019. 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 30/01/2013, while he was walking through the side of Alappuzha-Changanacherry public road, a pick van bearing registration No.KL-42 V-1121 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries. An amount of ₹3,00,000/- was claimed as compensation under various heads.

3. The first respondent/driver and the second respondent remained ex parte.

4. The third respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the policy, but denying negligence on the part of the first respondent/driver. The age, occupation and income were disputed. It was also contended that the amount claimed was excessive.

5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A10 were marked on the side of the claim petitioner. No documentary evidence was adduced by the respondents. Ext.X1 is the disability certificate.

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 ₹1,46,977/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation 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 latter, an agriculturist aged 64 years was earning an amount of ₹6,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal has fixed the notional income at ₹4,000/- which even going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. , (2011) 13 SCC 236 , is quite low and so it may be appropriately enhanced.

In the light of the dictum in Ramachandrappa (Supra), I find that the notional income can be fixed at ₹9,000/- per month.

Loss of earning Ext.A2 discharge certificate shows that the claim petitioner has sustained the following injuries:-

“Traumatic brain injury, subarachnoid haemorrhage ® frontal haemorrhagic contusion.”

He was hospitalized for a period of 17 days in two different spells. Therefore, taking into account the materials on record, I find that in all probability he might have been unable to work for a period of 6 months and therefore, the compensation under this head would be ₹9,000/- x 6 months=₹54,000/-.

Compensation for pain and suffering An amount of ₹50,000/- was claimed. The Tribunal granted an amount of ₹10,000/-. In the light of the nature of injuries sustained, I find that an amount of ₹20,000/- under this head would be just and reasonable.

Compensation for loss of amenities An amount of ₹50,000/- was claimed. The Tribunal granted an amount of ₹15,000/-. Ext.X1 disability certificate issued from the Govt. T. D. Medical College Hospital, Vandanam, Alappuzha shows that he has recurrent headaches and has walking difficulties also. In the light of the disabilities