Compensation in motor accident cases must reflect a just and reasonable estimation of actual loss and suffering.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.779 of

2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha. The respondents herein are the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 15.01.2009 at about 7.00 p.m., while the claimant was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-4/M-3866 through Alappuzha – Changanassery road, a lorry bearing registration No.KL-12/D- 1639 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motorcycle and as a result, he sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹10,00,000/-.

3. The first, second and third respondents were the owner, driver and the insurer of the offending vehicle respectively.

The third respondent – insurer filed a written statement admitting the insurance policy, disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A20 were marked and Pws. 1 and 2 were examined. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹3,93,065/-, as compensation under different heads with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs against the third respondent being the 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 insurance company.

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 an amount of ₹15,000/- was claimed as the monthly income of the appellant, who was an agriculturist by profession, the tribunal had taken only ₹4,000/-. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the appellant is having larger extent of paddy lands in his name. However, no document has been produced to prove that he was conducting cultivation in the paddy land. He also relied on Ext.A13 certificate issued by the Perumanikkari Vadakke Thollayiram Padasekhara Nellulpadaka Samithi, wherein the president had certified that the claimant was working as the Secretary of the Padasekharam. Going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [ 2011 (13) SCC 236 ], the monthly income of a coolie is taken at ₹7,000/-, for an accident in 2009. However, considering the fact that he was an agriculturist, and in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, I find it appropriate to re-fix the notional monthly income at₹8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand Only).

II. Loss of earnings The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal has taken only a period of six months for awarding compensation under the head loss of earnings. The appellant sustained the following injuries:

1. Fracture zygoma

2. Fracture ramus of mandible 3. Parasymphysis of mandible Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, I find that a period of seven months can be taken for awarding compensation under the said head. Since the notional monthly income has been re-fixed at ₹8,000/-, the total compensation payable under the said head would be ₹56,000/- (8,000 x 7). The tribunal had granted an amount of ₹24,000/- under the said head. Thus there will be an additional amount of ₹32,000/- (Rupees Thirty Two Thousand Only) under the said head.

III. Compensation for permanent disability The learned counsel for the appellant submits that Exts.A19 and A20 disability certificates were produced by the appellant to prove that he was disabled. As per Ext.