Compensation for injuries must reflect accurate income assessments and the severity of loss, as determined by evidence and legal precedent.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.557 of

2010 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- II, Pathanamthitta, claiming compensation. The respondents herein are the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 01.03.2010 at about 12.00 pm, while the claimant was riding his motorcycle bearing reg. No. KL-3/K-1150, another motorcycle bearing reg. No. KL-4/N-245 ridden by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motorcycle ridden by the claimant. As a result of the accident, the claimant had sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹5,00,250/- limited to ₹1,90,250/-.

3. The 1^st respondent/rider and 2^nd respondent/owner of the offending motorcycle remained ex parte before the tribunal. The third respondent/insurer filed a written statement admitting the policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed and denying liability. Before the tribunal Exts.A1 to A11 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹68,700/- as compensation under different heads with interest @9% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs from the 3^rd respondent being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the award passed 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 is mainly challenging the award under the following heads:-

Notional income :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though an amount of ₹12,000/- was claimed, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹3,000/- as the monthly income of the injured who was a painter by profession. 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 2010 is fixed at ₹7,500/- per month and sought for enhancement of fixation of monthly income. Considering the avocation of the petitioner, in order to award a just compensation, I find it is appropriate to refix the monthly income as ₹8,000/-.

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 15 days and further submitted that due to the injuries sustained, he could not go for work for almost six months. Following were the injuries sustained :-

“Fracture occurred at the site of mandible.”

Considering the nature of the injuries sustained, the period of treatment undergone and the age of the appellant, a period of four months can be taken for awarding compensation under the afore head. Since the monthly income is refixed at ₹8,000/-, the total compensation payable under the head loss of earnings, is recalculated thus: ₹32,000/- (8,000x4). The tribunal has already awarded an amount of ₹1,500/- towards loss of earnings. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹30,500/- under the head loss of earnings.

Extra nourishment :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹500/- under the head extra nourishment. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained and the period of treatment undergone, I find that a consolidated amount of ₹1,000/– can be awarded under the said head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹500/-

under the afore head.

Pain and sufferings :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹10,000/- under the head pain and sufferings. Considerin