The Court held that enhancing compensation requires reassessment of income potential and injury impact without exceeding reasonable bounds.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV)

No.811 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta, claiming enhancement of compensation awarded by the tribunal. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 17.05.2010, while he was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL.03.J.1732 along Kadichamatu-Mallappally public road, a tipper lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-04.Q.1565 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the motorcycle and he sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming compensation of ₹9,30,250/- which was limited to ₹4,30,250/-.

3. The first and second respondents/the driver and owner of the offending vehicle respectively, filed a written statement contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant. The third respondent/insurer filed a written statement admitting the insurance policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed and also denied the negligence of the first respondent. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A13 documents were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹2,65,400/- with interest @9% per annum as compensation under different heads against the third respondent 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 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 ₹9,000/- was claimed as the income of the injured, who was a driver by profession, the tribunal has taken only an amount of ₹5,000/- as the monthly income. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011)

13 SCC 236], the income of a Coolie, for an accident that occurred in the year 2010 is fixed as ₹7,500/- and sought for enhancement of the income of the claimant who was a driver. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that before this Court along with I.A. No. 1 of 2020, a notarized copy of driving licence is produced. On a perusal of the driving licence, it is seen that the claimant was having a driving licence to drive LMV and 3 wheeler. The licence was issued while he was aged 18 years and it was valid for 20 years or up to the age of 40 years. Since the accident was in the year 2010, he was having a valid driving licence to drive a three wheeler as well. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that in the FIS, the father had stated that the claimant was erking his livelihood by driving an auto- rickshaw. Considering the afore facts, I find it appropriate to re-fix the income at ₹8,500/-

Loss of earnings :- On a perusal of the award, it is seen that for awarding compensation under the head loss of earnings, the tribunal had taken only a period of three months. Following were the injuries sustained:

(1) lacerated wound involving right upper eyelid lateral 1/3d and right lower eyelid, lateral 1/3rd with loss of soft tissue (2) lacerated avulsed wound 10 X 5 X 3 cm.

lateral to the right eye (3) multiple fracture of anterior, medial and lateral wall of right maxillary sinus with haemosinus.

(4) Fracture of 4, 5, 6 of right ribs.

(5) Abrasion right side of chest, left ear and nose.

(6) Fracture left mastoid.

(7) Superficial fracture of lateral wall of right orbit.

Considering the nature of injuries sustained, I find that a perio