Court enhanced compensation by fixing notional income at ₹7,500/month, adding 25% future prospects, applying multiplier method for bystander expenses, awarding ₹7,50,000/- for pain and suffering and loss of amenities, and deleting duplicate disability award.

6 JUDGMENT [MACA Nos.3073/2015, 141/2016]

This appeal is filed by the appellant/3rd respondent insurance company in O.P.(MV) No.672 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam. The respondents herein were the original claimant, respondents 1 and 2 and the legal heirs of the claimant. The cross objection No.141 of 2016 is filed by the original claimant.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 10.10.2010, at about 5.30 p.m., while the original claimant was standing on the side of Pattambi – Trithala public road, a lorry bearing registration No.KL-5-E-7245 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against him, whereby he sustained severe injuries. 11 years after the date of the accident, during the pendency of the apepal, the injured/claimant passed away. Hence, the legal heirs of the claimant were impleaded in the 7 appeal as well as in the cross objection. The original claimant approached the Tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹ 19,73,600/-.

3. The first, second and third respondents were the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle respectively. Though notice was served on the respondents, the first and second respondents remained absent and were set ex parte. The third respondent insurer filed a written statement and additional written statement, admitting the insurance coverage of the vehicle and disputed the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Exts.A1 to A20 and Ext.X1 documents were marked. Pws. 1 and 2 were also examined. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and material on record, held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the first respondent - driver of the offending vehicle and found that respondents 1 to 3 were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and awarded a sum of 8 ₹ 15,35,700/- under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation with proportionate costs. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded, the 3rd respondent - insurance company has come up in appeal and dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the claimants/cross objectors have filed cross objection.

4. Heard the learned standing counsel for the appellant/insurance company and the learned counsel for the cross objectors/claimants.

5. The learned standing counsel for the appellant/insurance company as well as the learned counsel for the cross objectors/claimants mainly challenged the quantum of compensation under the following heads:

I. Notional income:

The learned counsel for the cross objectors submitted that ₹though an amount of 450/- per day was claimed as the income 9 of the injured notionally, who was a wood cutter by profession, the ₹ Tribunal had taken only an amount of 4,000/ month. The learned counsel for the cross objectors further submits that even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236] , the monthly income of a coolie for the accident in 2010, is fixed as ₹ 7,500/- and hence seeks for enhancement of the income fixed.

Following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (Supra) and in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, I find it appropriate ₹ to re-fix the monthly income at 7,500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred Only.

II. Loss of earning power Since the injured was aged 48 years at the time of accident, following the judgment in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others [(2013) 9 SCC 65], by adding 25% future prospects to the monthly income now fixed by this Court 10 and that will come to 9,375/-. (7,500 x 25% + 7,500). Since the loss of earning capacity of the injured is assessed at 100%, the total compensation payable under the head permanent disability ₹ ₹