Compensation in injury claims must restore the claimant's position before the accident, balancing pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.

1. This appeal has been filed against the award passed in O.P.(M.V) No.691/2008 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri (in short Tribunal). The claim petition has been filed under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 (in short the Act) towards compensation due to the injury sustained by the appellant / claimant (hereinafter be referred as the claimant).

2. Accident was occurred on 20.11.2006 at about 5.00 p.m., while the claimant was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL - 10 / K8533, due to hit by lorry bearing Reg.No.KRM 1684. The claimant sustained serious injuries. It is alleged that accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent. 2nd respondent is the owner and 3rd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. The claim is for a total amount of Rs.2,41,000/- which is limited to Rs.2,00,000/-.

3. Before the Tribunal, 1st and 2nd respondents remained ex - parte. 3rd respondent alone filed written statement admitting the policy coverage with respect to the offending vehicle. Rashness and negligence on the part of the 1st respondent is denied.

4. Exhibits A1 to A7 series and X1 marked from the side of the claimant. There was no oral evidence from either side. Tribunal on evaluating the pleadings and documents, came to a conclusion that 1st respondent was responsible for the accident. 2nd respondent is held vicariously liable for the acts of the 1st respondent. 3rd respondent / insurer is held liable to indemnify the 2nd respondent / insured. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,07,413/-.

5. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, claimant came up in appeal before this Court on various grounds stated in the memorandum of appeal.

6. Notice to 1st respondent is complete and service of notice on the 2nd respondent is dispensed with. Adv.P.M.M. Najeeb Khan, appeared on behalf of the 3rd respondent / insurer. Heard the learned counsel for the claimant and also the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent / insurer. Lower court records were called for and perused.

7. According to the learned counsel for the claimant, the claimant was a manual labourer aged 34 years. He claimed monthly income of Rs.5,000/-. But the Tribunal taken the income notionally as Rs.3,000/-, which according to her, is very low. She would also contend that the claimant sustained crush injury to the right big toe and injury to right knee due to the accident. The claimant had undergone surgery after 3 years of the accident in 2009. But the Tribunal refused to grant any compensation on account of the treatment undergone in the year 2009. She would also contend that compensation awarded under the head of pain and suffering is very low and no compensation has been awarded towards loss of amenities.

8. The learned Standing Counsel for the insurer, on the other hand, would contend that a just and reasonable compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal and no interference is called for at the instance of this Court.

9. The first aspect is with regard to the monthly income of the claimant. He is claimed to be a daily labourer and claimed monthly income of Rs.5,000/-. No evidence whatsoever has been adduced to prove the income. In Ramachandrapa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [ (2011) 13 SCC 236 ], the Hon'ble Apex Court has notionally taken monthly income of a coolie in an accident occurred in the year 2004 at Rs.4,500/-.

10. In the present case, since the claimant was 34 years old and the accident was in the year 2006, monthly income of Rs.5,000/-