Negligence in motor accidents establishes grounds for compensation, emphasizing proper evaluation of income and damages.

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.301/2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 31/08/2019. The respondent herein is the third respondent 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

09/01/2018 at about 07:15 p.m., while he was riding motorcycle bearing registration no.KL-47-F-6943 through Mala- Krishnankotta road and when he reached near Companypady, another motorcycle bearing registration no.KL-46-C-1175 ridden by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit his motorcycle, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries.

3. The first respondent-owner and the second respondent-rider remained ex-parte.

4. The third respondent-insurer filed written statement admitting the policy, but denying negligence on the part of the second respondent. The averments in the petition regarding age, job and income of the claim petitioner were disputed. The compensation claimed under various heads was contended to be exorbitant.

5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A9 series were marked on the side of the claim petitioner. No 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 second respondent-rider of the offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹4,59,000/- 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 is challenged by the claim petitioner-

Notional income It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that the latter, a carpenter was earning ₹20,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal has fixed the notional income at ₹10,000/-, which is quite low and hence the same needs to be enhanced. It is also pointed out that in the light of the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236 , the income of even a coolie in the year 2018 was liable to be fixed at ₹11,500/-. In the case on hand, the fact that the claim petitioner is a carpenter is not disputed. That being the position, the amount needs to be suitably enhanced. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent-insurer that the amount fixed by the Tribunal in the absence of any evidence is reasonable and that it does not call for any interference.

9.1. Going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa (Supra), the income of even a coolie in the year 2018 is liable to be fixed at ₹11,500/-. The fact that the claim petitioner is a carpenter is not seen disputed by the third respondent-insurer. That being the position, I find that fixing the notional income at ₹14,000/- would be just and reasonable.

Loss of earnings

10. The materials on record show that the claim petitioner sustained the following injuries-

“Right maxillary and right orbital wall fracture; contused lacerated wound on right knee with deranged renal parameters etc.”

He was hospitalised for a period of seven days. Therefore, in all probability the claim petitioner might have been unable to work for a period of five months. Hence, an amount of ₹70