The court emphasized the need for reasonable adjustments in compensation for injuries based on established income standards and disability assessments.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.131 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Attingal dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. The respondent herein is the 3^rd respondent before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 23.10.2008 at about 9.00 p.m., while the claimant was walking along the footpath, he was knocked down by a Maruti van bearing registration No. KL-21/9764, which was being driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner. As a result of the accident, the claimant had sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹1,84,000/- limited to ₹50,000/-.

3. The 1^st respondent/owner and 2^nd respondent/driver of the offending vehicle remained ex parte before the tribunal. The third respondent/insurer filed a written statement admitting the policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal Exts.A1 to A6 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹1,77,623/- as compensation under different heads with interest @9% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs from the 3^rd respondent being the insurer; and in default of payment as above, penal interest @ 12% per annum was also awarded. Dissatisfied with the award passed by the tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned standing counsel for the respondent insurance company.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant is mainly challenging the award under the following heads:-

Notional income :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though an amount of ₹10,000/- was claimed, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹4,000/- as the monthly income of the injured. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that, as per the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [ 2011 (13) SCC 236 ], the income of a coolie for an accident in the year 2008 is fixed at ₹6,500/- per month and sought for enhancement of fixation of monthly income. Following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), in order to award a just compensation, I find it is appropriate to refix the monthly income as ₹6,500/-.

Loss of earnings :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that for awarding compensation under the head loss of earnings, the tribunal has taken only a period of three months which is on a lower side. It is also submitted that due to the injuries sustained, the claimant could not work for almost eight months. The claimant sustained pubic symphysis and fracture acetabulam left. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained, the period of treatment undergone and the age of the appellant, a period of six months can be taken for awarding compensation under the aforesaid head. Since the monthly income is refixed at ₹6,500/-, the total compensation payable under the head loss of earnings, is recalculated thus: ₹39,000/- (6,500x6). The tribunal has already awarded an amount of ₹12,000/- towards loss of earnings. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹27,000/- under the head loss of earnings.

Bystander expenses :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹1,800/- under the head bystander expenses. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained and the period of treatment undergone, I find that a consolidated amount of ₹2,000/– can be awarded under the said head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹200/- under the afore he