The court clarified the erroneous attribution of contributory negligence and enhanced the compensation awarded to the appellant.

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.1840 of 2005 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, claiming compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimant is that on 12.06.2004, while he was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-08-T-1914 through Mannuthy - Paliakkara NH-47 public road, a jeep bearing Reg.No.KL-G- 1505 driven by the third respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle, whereby he sustained serious injuries. He approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹1,50,000/-.

3. Respondents 1 and 3 are the owner and driver of the offending vehicle respectively. The second respondent is said to be the policy holder of the offending vehicle. Respondents 1 to 3 remained ex parte before the tribunal. The fourth respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Exts.A1 to A7, B1 & B2 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, though assessed a sum of ₹1,21,703/- as compensation under different heads, finding that there was 15% contributory negligence on the part of the claimant in causing the accident, awarded to the claimant only an amount of ₹1,03,500/- with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the fourth respondent being the insurer with right of recovery against the first respondent/owner of the offending vehicle. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal as well as challenging the finding of contributory negligence, the claimant has come up in appeal.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the first respondent, and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant claims enhancement under the following heads:

5.1. Notional income - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was working in Andhra Pradesh as statue maker and was earning ₹6,000/- per month, however, the tribunal has fixed the monthly income notionally only at ₹3,500/-, which is on the lower side. No document was produced by the appellant to prove income. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that it is stated in the FIS that the appellant was a statue maker. Even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236] , for an accident that occurred in 2004, the monthly income of a coolie is fixed at ₹4,500/-. Considering the fact that the appellant was working in Andhra Pradesh as a statue maker, I deem it appropriate to refix the monthly income of the appellant at ₹5,000/-.

5.2. Loss of earnings - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant could not go to work for almost six months, however, the tribunal has taken only a period of three months for awarding compensation towards loss of earnings. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the age of the appellant, I am of the opinion that four months can be taken for awarding compensation for loss of earnings. Accordingly, the appellant will be entitled to get a total compensation of ₹20,000/- (5000 x 4) under this head. Thus, there will be an additional compensation of ₹9,500/- towards loss of earnings.

5.3. Pain and suffering - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the tribunal awarded only ₹15,000/- towards pain and suffering, which is on the lower side. Considering the injuries