The court upgraded notional income for compensation based on the contributions of a housewife and modified the compensation duration due to significant injuries.

J U D G M E N T

This appeal is filed by the claimant, aged 58 years, in O.P.(MV) No.2036 of 2017 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, who met with an accident on

14.04.2017.

2. I have heard Smt. T. Manasy, the learned counsel for the appellant, as well as Sri. Lal .K. Joseph, representing the first respondent – Insurance Company.

3. The first issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is essentially as regards the fixation of the notional income by the Tribunal at Rs.8,000/- per month. The claimant, admittedly, was a housewife. The Tribunal, as noticed above, adopted the notional income at Rs.8,000/- per month. In my opinion, the service rendered by a housewife is invaluable. In such circumstances, the notional income fixed at Rs.8,000/- does not appear to be correct. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the notional income requires a slight modification with reference to the principles laid down in Ramachandrappa V. Manager, Royal Sundaram and Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236] . Insofar as the accident took place in the year 2017, going by the principles laid down in the aforementioned decision, the notional income requires to be enhanced to Rs.11,000/-. To that extent, the award of the Tribunal is modified.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant would also point out that the Tribunal has granted compensation under the head 'loss of earning' for a period of six months alone. I have perused the nature of the injuries as noted in paragraph 19 of the award of the Tribunal. This Court notices that serious injuries, including fractures of the 4^th 5^th and 6^th ribs, were suffered by the claimant. In that view of the matter, especially since the claimant was a housewife, a slight modification under this category is also required. Therefore, I hold that the claimant would be entitled to compensation under the head of ‘loss of earnings’ for a period of eight months.

5. In such circumstances, the appellant would be entitled for the following amounts:

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed, modifying the impugned award, entitling the appellant to get an additional amount of Rs.98,320/- (Rupees Ninety Eight Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty only), along with the amounts already awarded by the Tribunal, to be paid by the 2^nd respondent – Insurance Company. Needless to say, all other findings and directions of the Tribunal in the impugned Award, including the rate of interest, will remain unaltered.