Determination of fair compensation for personal injuries based on notional income and disability assessments.

J U D G M E N T

The claimant in O.P.(M.V.) No.770 of 2015 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal), is the appellant herein.

2. I have heard Sri.S.Aswakumar, the learned counsel for the appellant, as well as Smt.K.S.Santhi, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent – insurance company.

3. The accident occurred on 17.03.2015, and at the time of the accident, the claimant was aged 29 years. In this appeal, four issues arise for consideration.

4. The first issue is with reference to the fixation of -

the notional income of the claimant at Rs.8,000/ per month. The claimant had contended that he was a Coolie -

earning a monthly income of Rs.15,000/ . However, the -

Tribunal fixed his notional income at Rs.8,000/ , which has been challenged in this appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that, insofar as the appellant was a Coolie, his notional income requires to be fixed with reference to the notifications issued under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 . He also relies on the judgment of this Court in M.A.C.A.No.3146 of 2021 dated 20.11.2024 in this regard. I have considered the afore submission. The judgment in M.A.C.A.No.3146 of 2021 , was with reference to a claimant, who was employed as a Cleaner in a lorry and, therefore, this Court, with reference to the and relevant notifications thereunder as well as the provisions of Kerala Motor Transport Workers’ Payment of Fair Wages Act, 1971 , has -

arrived at the minimum wage/income at Rs.15,000/ . In my opinion, the afore judgment cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, insofar as the appellant herein is not governed by the provisions of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers’ Payment of Fair Wages Act, 1971 . Even on the face of the afore, the question as to whether the appellant is to be granted an enhancement with reference to the notional income requires to be considered. This Court notices that the appellant, as noticed earlier, was claiming that he was a Coolie, and this contention has not been doubted or challenged by the insurance company before the Tribunal. It is only because the appellant did not produce any evidence that the Tribunal fixed his notional -

income at Rs.8,000/ per month. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the averments contained in the claim petition before the Tribunal, I am of the opinion that the notional income -

requires to be refixed at Rs.13,000/ per month, and I do so.

5. The second issue arising for consideration is with reference to the permanent disability quantified at 14% as per Ext.A11 disability certificate. The Tribunal, in paragraph No.14 of the award, as against 14% has arrived at a functional disability of 6%. On a perusal of Ext.A11, I notice that the details of the injuries suffered by the claimant are specifically recorded in the certificate. A perusal of the nature of the injuries would show that the appellant had difficulty in squatting, climbing stairs, running, etc. This Court notices that the disability certificate at Ext.A11 was not issued by a Medical Board but only by a private Orthopedician attached to a private hospital. Even on the face of the afore, I am of the opinion that, insofar as the nature of the injuries is not in dispute, the disability has to be estimated with reference to the nature of the injuries as contained in Ext.A11. A specific reference to the nature of the injuries as regards the difficulty in squatting, climbing stairs, etc., would show that the functional disability ought to have been accepted as stated in Ext.A11, even though the same was not proven in accordance with law. Therefore, the award of the T