The claimant's contributory negligence cannot be established merely by lack of a driving license; compensation was partly enhanced based on judicial precedents.

JUDGMENT

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

1031/2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. The respondents herein are the respondent nos. 1 and 3 before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimant is that on 04.07.2010 at about 4.15 pm, while the claimant was riding the motor cycle having Reg.No.KL-8/AF 7396 through Nalukettu-Koratty public road, another motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-8/U 7826 driven by the 2^nd respondent in the OP(MV) in a rash and negligent manner with terrific speed hit against the petitioner’s motorcycle to which he was thrown out to the road and sustained with injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming compensation of ₹5,22,000/- which was limited to ₹5,22,000/- limited to ₹3,00,000/-.

3. The 1^st and 2^nd respondents/owner and the driver of the offending vehicle remained ex parte before the tribunal. The 3^rd respondent, the insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy, but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed and also denied the negligence attributed against the 1^st respondent. Before the tribunal, Exts. A1 to A9 and B1 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹1,17,940/- (70% of ₹1,68,480/-) with interest @7.5% per annum as compensation under different heads against the 3^rd 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. Though notice was served on the first and second respondents, first respondent chose not to appear before this court.

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

Notiona l incom e :- The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that though an amount of ₹24,000/- was claimed as the income of the injured, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹3,500/- as the monthly notional income. The learned counsel further submitted that even going by the judgment in Ramachanddrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [ (2011) 13 SCC 236 ], the income of a coolie, is fixed at ₹7,500/- for an accident which occurred in the year 2010 and sought for enhancement of the income fixed. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submitted that no documents were produced to prove the income of the claiamnt. However, in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), I find it appropriate to re-fix the income as ₹7,500/-.

Bystander expenses:- The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the tribunal has taken only ₹150/- per day for 18 days for awarding compensation towards bystander expenses, which is on the lower side. Since the accident was in the year 2010, I find it appropriate to take an amount of ₹200/- per day and thus the total compensation payable under the head bystander expenses is ₹3,600/-(200 x 18). The tribunal has awarded an amount of ₹2,700/-. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹900/- under the afore head.

Extra nourishment:- Though the appellant claimed an amount of ₹3,000/- under this head, the tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹500/-. Considering the fact that there was 18 days in-patient treatment and the accident was in the year 2010, I find it appropriate to award an amount of ₹3,000/- under this head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹2,500/- under the afore head.

Pain and sufferings :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that th