Court determined that existing compensation levels were inadequate and recalibrated them based on the claimant's ongoing injuries and earnings.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.1044 of

2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavooor, claiming compensation. The respondents herein are the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the appellant/claimant, on 29.03.2004 at about

10.30 pm, while the claimant was riding as a pillion rider in a motorcycle bearing reg.no.KL-17/A-3954, a lorry bearing registration No.TN-02/7488 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 ₹17,29,707/- limited to ₹17,00,000/-.

3. The first respondent/owner cum driver of the offending vehicle remained ex parte before the tribunal. The second respondent insurer of the offending vehicle filed a written statement admitting the validity of the policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A4(e), Ext.B1 and Exts.X1 to X2 were marked and Pws 1 to 3 were examined. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹3,13,758/- as compensation under different heads with interest @8% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs against the 2^nd respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle. 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 :-

Notional income :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though an amount of ₹6,500/- was claimed, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹3,000/- as the monthly income of the injured who was a computer graphic designer. 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 2004 is fixed at ₹4,500/- per month and sought for enhancement of fixation of monthly income. However, the income of the injured was proved by Ext.A3 salary certificate issued by PW2. Therefore, I do not find any reason to disbelieve the said certificate. Accordingly, in order to award just compensation, I find it is appropriate to refix the monthly income as ₹6,500/-.

Loss of earnings :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal has granted an amount of ₹18,000/- under the said head. The appellant had sustained degloved skin right upper limb with fracture right ulna lower third and surgeries were done for her on eight occasions. Considering the nature of injuries sustained as well as the age of the appellant, I am inclined to take ten months for awarding compensation under the said head. Since the monthly income is refixed at ₹6,500/-, the total compensation payable under the head is recalculated thus: ₹65,000/- (6,500x10). The tribunal has already awarded an amount of ₹18,000/-. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹47,000/-

under the head loss of earnings.

Bystander expenses/Attenda nt charges :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal has granted only an amount of ₹11,400/- at the rate of ₹100 for 114 days under the said head. Considering the nature of injuries sustained, the year of accident and the period of hospitalisation, I find that a total sum of ₹22,800/-, calculated at the rate of ₹200/- per day for 114 days, can be awarded under this head. T