Compensation awarded in motor accident claims is subject to review and modification based on the established evidence of earnings and injuries.

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.1071/2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 13/07/2020. The respondents herein are the respondents 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

04/10/2018 at about 06:00 p.m., while the petitioner was riding motorcycle bearing registration no.KL-44-8345 through Ernakulam – Muvattupuzha road and when he reached the place by name, Mekkadampu, tipper lorry bearing registration no.KL-

07-CN 622 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries.

3. The first respondent-owner and the second respondent-driver of the offending vehicle 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, occupation and monthly 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 A12 and were marked on the side of the claim petitioner. No documentary evidence was produced 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-driver of the offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹3,29,000/- together with interest @ 7% 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 20-year-old was conducting a catering business and he was also a driver earning ₹20,000/- per month. The Tribunal fixed the notional income at ₹10,000/-, which is quite low and hence the same needs to be enhanced. In support of the argument, she relies on the dictum in Manusha Sreekumar v.

United India Insurance Co.Ltd., (2022) 17 SCC 321 . Per contra, it is submitted by the third respondent-insurer that the amount that has been fixed by the Tribunal is reasonable and if at all the court is inclined to enhance the same, it may be according to the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd , (2011) 13 SCC

236

9.1. In Manusha Sreekumar (Supra), the deceased was a self employed man, who is described by the Apex Court as a person, who donned multiple hats so as to provide a comfortable living for his family. It was alleged that the deceased was a fish vendor cum driver earning at least ₹25,000/- per month. In support of the claim, various documentary evidences were produced to prove his financial capacity, which were- (i) course certificate showing that the deceased had completed two years course in electronic mechanic trade; (ii) a job training certificate at Sun Generic Cabl