The determination of compensation in motor accident claims must consider not only established amounts but also the applicant's claims and applicable legal precedents.

JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.1086 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam. The respondent herein was the third respondent before the tribunal. 2. The case of the appellant/claimant is that on

31.05.2012, while she was travelling in a car bearing Reg.No.KL-02-AH 6549 along Kottarakkara - Adoor road, a bus bearing Reg.No.KL–02-AG 2829 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the car, whereby she sustained serious injuries. She approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹3,00,000/-.

3. Respondents 1 and 2 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. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A11 were marked on the side of the appellant/claimant. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. 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 ₹32,385/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9%

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 teacher by profession, though she claimed that she was earning ₹10,000/- per month, the tribunal has fixed the notional monthly income only at ₹6,000/-. Admittedly, no document was produced by the appellant to prove the income or occupation. However, as per the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236] , the notional monthly income of the appellant ought to have been fixed at ₹8,500/-. Accordingly, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), I deem it appropriate to refix the notional monthly income of the appellant at ₹8,500/-.

5.2. Loss of earnings - The learning counsel for the appellant submits that due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant could not go to work for almost three months, however, the tribunal has taken only one month for awarding compensation towards loss of earnings. The appellant sustained a lacerated wound right upper eye lid, lacerated wound right angle of mouth, multiple facial abrasions and hemorrhagic contusion left temporal bone. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the age of the appellant, I am of the opinion that two months can be taken for awarding compensation for loss of earnings. Accordingly, the appellant will be entitled to get a total compensation of ₹17,000/- (8500 x 2) under this head. Since the tribunal has already awarded an amount of ₹6,000/-, there will be an additional compensation of ₹11,000/- 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 ₹10,000/-. Considering the injuries sustained by her and the sufferings that she 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 ₹10,000/- as compensation towards pain and suffering.

5.4. Loss of amenities - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that no compensation w