In assessing compensation for personal injury claims, courts may adjust the awarded amounts based on notional income and consider established precedents for reasonable compensation.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.26 of

2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, claiming compensation. The respondent herein is the 3^rd respondent before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimant is that on 20.05.2012, at about 20:30 hours, while he was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KL-5/U-5505, another motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KL-33/A-3554, driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit on the motorcycle on which he was travelling. As a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹4,00,000/-.

3. The first and second respondents/ driver and the owner of the offending vehicle respectively, remained ex parte before the tribunal. The third respondent/insurance company filed a written statement admitting the insurance policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A19 and X1 and X2 were marked. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a compensation of ₹2,92,300/- under different heads with interest @9% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the 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 insurer.

5. The appellant has filed this appeal challenging compensation under the following heads:-

Notional income :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, though an amount of ₹8,000/- was claimed, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹5,000/- as the monthly income of the appellant. The learned Counsel further submits that 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 2012 is fixed at ₹8,500/- and sought for fixation of the income fixed. In order to award a just and reasonable compensation and considering the principles laid down in Ramachandrappa (supra), I am inclined to re-fix the monthly income at ₹8,500/-

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

(1) Undisplaced fracture clavicle left (2) Type II open comminuted fracture patella right (3) Fracture maxillar sinus (4) Abrasion face.

Considering the injuries sustained, I find that a period of five months is adequate for awarding compensation under the head loss of earnings. Since the notional income is fixed as ₹8,500, I find that a total amount of ₹42,500/- (8,500 x 5) is payable under the afore head. Since the tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹20,000/- under the afore head, there will be an additional amount of ₹22,500/- under the head loss of earnings.

Pain and suffering:- The learned counsel for the appellant submits that though an amount of ₹1,00,000/- was claimed, the tribunal awarded only ₹25,000/- towards pain and suffering, which is on the lower side. Considering the injuries sustained by the appellant, I am inclined to grant an amount of ₹40,000/- to the appellant as a total compensation towards pain and suffering. Thus, the appellant will be entitled to get an additional amount of ₹15,000/- as compensation under this head.

Loss of amenities :- Though an amount of ₹1,00,000/-

was claimed, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹20,000/- towards loss of amenities. Considering the fact that he was a gr