The court established that the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act must reflect just and reasonable enhancements based on presented evidences and the severity of injury.

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.241/2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 30/08/2019. The respondents herein are respondents 1 and 2 respectively 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 04/12/2017 at about 08:50 hours, while he was riding motorcycle bearing registration no.KL46D1187 through Palakkad-Ottapalam public road and when he reached 19^th Mile, Ottapalam, autorickshaw bearing registration no.KL51G1372 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down, as a result of ₹

which he sustained grievous injuries. A sum of 5,00,000/- was claimed as compensation under various heads.

3. The first respondent/owner-cum-driver filed written statement denying negligence on his part.

4. 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. The age, occupation, income etc. of the claim petitioner were disputed. It was also contended that the compensation claimed was quite excessive.

5. Before the Tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A8 were marked on the side of the claim petitioner and Exts.B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the respondents.

6. The Tribunal on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the first respondent/owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded ₹

an amount of 2,02,975/- 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 latter, aged 51 years, was a salesman earning an amount of ₹

15,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal has fixed the notional ₹

income at 8,000/- which needs to be appropriately enhanced.

9.1. Though it is alleged that the claim petitioner was a salesman working in M/s.Sobha Marbles, Ottappalam, no evidence was adduced to substantiate the same. In the absence of any evidence and in the light of the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236, I find that fixing the notional income of the claim ₹

petitioner at 11,000/- would be just and reasonable.

Pain and suffering ₹

10. It is pointed out that though an amount of 50,000/- was claimed under this head, the Tribunal has granted an amount of ₹

25,000/- only. The materials on record show that the claim petitioner had sustained fracture both bones of left forearm and minor injuries to right shoulder, chest and occipital region. He was hospitalized for a period of 3 days. In the light of the injuries sustained and the medical interventions he had to undergo, I find ₹

that an amount of 50,000/- as claimed under this head would be just and reasonable.

11. The impugned Award is modified to the following extent: