The court refined compensation assessments for income, disability, pain, and suffering, modifying earlier tribunal awards to better reflect actual damages suffered.

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the claimant in OP(MV)

No.3599 of 2004 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. The case of the appellant/claimant is that on

24.03.2004, while he was travelling in an autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-10/H-9865 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner through Kodungallur-Guruvayoor Temple road, it turned upside, whereby he sustained serious injuries. He approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹2,60,000/-.

3. Respondents 1 and 2, who are the owner and driver of the offending vehicle respectively, remained ex parte before the tribunal. The respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A13 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of ₹1,46,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 8%

per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the third respondent being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal.

4. I have 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 under the following heads:

5.1. Notional income - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was a carpenter and earning ₹4,500/- per month, however, the tribunal has fixed the monthly income notionally only at ₹2,500/-. Even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236] , for an accident that occurred in 2004, the monthly income ought to have been fixed at ₹4,500/-. Accordingly, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), I deem it appropriate to refix the monthly income of the appellant at ₹4,500/-.

5.2. Loss of earnings - Since the monthly income of the appellant is refixed at ₹4,500/-, compensation towards loss of earnings for a period of five months has to be recalculated, which would come to ₹22,500/-. Thus, the appellant will be entitled to get an additional compensation of ₹10,000/- towards loss of earnings.

5.3. Pain and suffering - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the appellant claimed ₹25,000/- towards pain and suffering, the tribunal awarded only ₹15,000/-. Considering the injuries sustained by him and the sufferings that he had undergone, I am inclined to grant an amount of ₹20,000/- to the appellant as total compensation towards pain and suffering. Thus, the appellant will be entitled to get an additional amount of ₹5,000/- as compensation towards pain and suffering.

5.4. Loss of amenities - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the tribunal awarded only ₹10,000/- towards loss of amenities, which is on the lower side. Considering the injuries sustained by the appellant and the loss of enjoyment in life, I deem it appropriate to award a total compensation of ₹20,000/- towards loss of amenities. Thus, the appellant will be entitled to get an additional amount of ₹10,000/- towards loss of amenities.

5.5. Permanent disability - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that Ext.A6 disability certificate shows that the appellant sustained a permanent disability of 20%, whi