Both drivers displayed composite negligence in an accident, attributing liability of 25:75, mandating enhanced compensation for the claimant.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.1823 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda seeking enhancement of compensation as well as challenging the finding of the tribunal fixing the liability upon the 4^th respondent, owner of the vehicle. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 17.07.2001 at about 1 p.m., while the claimant was travelling as a passenger in an autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-8/G 8329 driven by 2^nd respondent through Chalakudy-Angamaly Sector of NH 47 and when the autorickshaw reached near Koratty Junction a tanker lorry bearing Reg.No.TN 47/C 9229 driven by 5^th respondent in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite direction and collided with the autorickshaw, as a result claimant sustained serious bodily injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming compensation of ₹2,58,000/- which was limited to ₹1,00,000/-.

3. The first and second respondents who were the registered owner and the driver of the auto-rickshaw remained ex-parte before the tribunal. The third respondent, insurer of the auto- rickshaw, filed a written statement admitting the policy, but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. It was also contended that the charge sheet was drawn against the fifth respondent, driver of the tanker lorry. The fourth and fifth respondents, who were the registered owner and the driver of the tanker lorry filed a written statement contending that the accident occurred not due to the negligence of the 5^th respondent. PW’s 1 and 2 were examined. Exts.A1 to A11 documents were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹73,326/- with interest @6% per annum as compensation under different heads against the 4^th respondent being the owner of the tanker lorry, since there was no insurance coverage for the tanker lorry; and in default of payment as above, penal interest @ 7.5% per annum was also awarded. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, as well as the fixing the liability upon the 4^th respondent, owner of the vehicle, the claimant has come up in appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned standing counsel for the respondent insurer. Though notice was served on the fourth respondent and vakalat was filed, they chose not to appear before this court.

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 ₹4,000/- was claimed as the income of the injured, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹2,000/-. The learned counsel further submitted that the injured was working in a cassette shop and was earning an amount of ₹150/- per month. The claimant was examined as PW2, but no other evidence was adduced to prove the avocation nor the income. Even going by 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 2001 is fixed as ₹3,000/- and sought for enhancement of income. In order to award a just and reasonable compensation, I find it appropriate to re-fix the income at ₹3,000/-.

Loss of earnings :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that for awarding compensation under the head loss of earnings, the tribunal had taken only a period of three months. The claimant sustained (1)fracture both bones left forearm, (2)abrasion segmental fracture and (3)abrasion left knee. Considering the nature of i