The court enhanced compensation for injuries sustained in a motorcycle accident, recalibrating income and disability assessments based on legal precedents.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.57 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta. The respondents herein are the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the appellant/claimant, on 10.11.2007 at about

06.00 am while the petitioner was travelling as a pillion rider in the motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-12C/3278, a jeep bearing registration No.KL-12-A-4941 driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motorcycle. As a result of the accident, the claimant had sustained serious injuries. The appellant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹5,24,000/-

limited to ₹4,00,000/-.

3. Respondents 1 and 2, who are the driver and owner of the offending jeep respectively, remained ex parte before the tribunal. The 3^rd respondent/insurer of the jeep filed a written statement wherein the policy was admitted but disputing the liability as well as the quantum of compensation claimed was disputed. The 4^th, 5^th and 6^th respondents are driver, owner and insurer of the motorcycle. The 5^th respondent remained ex parte before the tribunal. The 4^th respondent had filed a written statement that he was the rider of the bike at the relevant time. The 6^th respondent/insurer of the motorcycle filed a written statement denying the insurance coverage of the bike since the petitioner did not furnish the particulars pertaining to the insurance policy. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A13, Ext.B1 and Exts.C1 to C3 and Ext.X1 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹3,95,600/- as compensation under different heads with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs against the 6^th respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle and then recover the same from the 5^th respondent and against the 3rd respondent insurer at a ratio of 50:50. 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 appearing on behalf of the respondents insurance companies.

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

Notional income :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though an amount of ₹6,000/- was claimed, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹3,000/- as the monthly income of the injured who was working as a pharmacist. 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 2007 is fixed at ₹6,000/- 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 ₹6,000/-.

Loss of earnings :- Since the monthly income is refixed at ₹6,000/-, the total compensation payable under the head is recalculated thus: ₹72,000/- (6,000x12). The tribunal has already awarded an amount of ₹36,000/-. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹36,000/- under the head loss of earnings.

Pain and sufferings :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though an amount of ₹50,000/- was claimed, the tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹20,000/- under the head pain and sufferings. Following were the injuries sustained:

1. Fracture both bones left leg

2. Extensor tendon injury left leg

3. Crush injury left leg and left foot

4. X-ray confirmed the fracture Considering the nature of injuries sustained as well as the age of the ap