Compensation enhancement in personal injury case assessed based on revised notional income and consideration of injury severity.

JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant in OP(MV)

No.69 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. The respondent herein is the second respondent before the Tribunal.

2. According to the appellant/claimant, on 21.08.2010 at about 11.00 p.m., while he was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No. KL-7/BE-3599 through Banerji road, another motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-43-B-633 ridden by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the appellant and as a result, he sustained serious injuries. The appellant approached the Tribunal claiming a total compensation ₹

of 8,30,000/- .

3. The first and second respondents were the owner-cum-

rider and insurer of the offending vehicle respectively before the Tribunal. Though notice was served on the respondents, the first respondent remained absent and was set ex parte. The second respondent – insurer filed a written statement, admitting the insurance policy, denying the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A10 series and Exts.A11 to A13 were marked on the side of the appellant and Ext.X1 marked as court exhibit. Petitioner was examined as PW1. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the respondents. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, found that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the first respondent and awarded a sum ₹

of 3,80,961/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 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 insurer.

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

I. Notional Income The learned counsel for the appellant submits that though, the appellant, who was running a stationery shop, had claimed an amount of ₹ 5,000/- as the notional monthly income, the Tribunal ₹

had taken only an amount of 4,000/-. The learned counsel further submits even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [ 2011 (13) SCC 236 ], the monthly income ought to have been taken at ₹

7,500/-, since the accident was in the year 2010. Accordingly, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra) and in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, I find it appropriate ₹

to re-fix the notional monthly income at 7,500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred Only).

II. Loss of earnings The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has taken only a period of six months for awarding compensation under the head loss of earnings. Following are the injuries sustained by the appellant:

i) Lacerated wound on the right foot ii) Oedema and deformity on right femur iii) Oedema and deformity on right leg iv) Comminuted fracture of right femur v) Fracture of both bones right leg vi) Comminuted fracture of distal tibia right ankle vii) Fracture right patella viii) Open fracture 4^th metatarsal right foot ix) Fracture left clavicle Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, I find that a period of eight months can be taken for awarding compensation under the said head. Since the notional ₹

monthly income has been re-fixed at 7,500/-, the total ₹

compensation payable under the said head would be 60,000/-

₹

(7,500 x 8). The Tribunal had granted an amount of 24,000/-

under the said head. Thus there will be an additional amount of ₹

36,000/- (Rupees Thirty Six Thousand Only) under the afore head.

III. Pain and sufferings Though the appellant had claimed