Compensation for claimants in motor accidents is subject to reassessment based on new evidence and legal precedents regarding income and disability.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.395 of

2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta, seeking enhancement of the award amount. The respondents herein are the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the appellant/claimant, on 20.11.2006 at about 7.30 p.m., while the claimant was pillion riding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-26/406 through Konni - Pathanapuram public road, an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-3H-7933 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motorcycle and as a result, the claimant sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹2,60,000/-.

3. Though notice was issued to the respondents, the first and second respondents, the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle, remained absent and were set ex parte before the tribunal. The third respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the insurance policy, denying the liability and disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. They contended that the first respondent was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A12 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, found that the accident was due to negligence on the part of the first respondent and the appellant/claimant was awarded a sum of ₹2,13,868/-, as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate cost against the third respondent insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded 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 insurer.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant claims enhancement mainly under the following heads:

I. Notional Income The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though the appellant had claimed an amount of ₹5,000/- as the monthly income, who was a rubber tapper by profession, the tribunal had taken the same. The learned counsel further submitted that even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [ 2011 (13) SCC 236 ], the monthly income of a coolie for an accident in 2006 is fixed at ₹5,500/- and sought for enhancement of income. Thus, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (Supra) and in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, I find it appropriate to re-

fix the notional monthly income at ₹5,500/-.

II. Loss of earnings The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal has taken only a period of three months for awarding compensation under the head loss of earnings. The appellant sustained segmental fracture lower 1/3rd (right) femur and old supra condylar fracture (right) femur due to the accident. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, I find that a period of five months can be taken for awarding compensation under the said head. Since the notional monthly income has been re-fixed at ₹5,500/-, the total compensation payable under the head loss of earnings would be ₹27,500/- (5,500 x 5). The tribunal had already awarded an amount of ₹15,000/- under the said head. Thus there will be an additional amount of ₹12,500/- under the afore head.

III. Extra nourishment The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal had awarded an amount of ₹2,000/- under the head extra nourishment. Considering the year of accident as well as the period of hospitalisation, I am inclined to grant a consolidated amount of ₹3,000/- towards the afore head. Hence the appellant will be entitled for an additional amount