Compensation must be just, reasonable, and reflective of financial and physical impact from the incident.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.1182 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. The respondents herein are the respondents before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimant is that on 11.04.2006 at about 3.30 p.m, while the claimant was travelling in a motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KL8F-7192, a tata sumo bearing Reg. No.KL-10G-9210 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle. As a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹3,00,000/-. limited to ₹2,86,000/-

3. The first and second respondents, owner and the driver of the offending vehicle respectively, remained ex parte before the tribunal. The third respondent- insurance company filed a written statement admitting the insurance policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A15 to A23 were marked. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a compensation of ₹2,36,900/- under different heads with interest @8% per annum from the date of petition till realization, 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 insurer.

5. The appellant has filed this appeal challenging compensation under the following heads:-

Notional income :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, though an amount of ₹5,000/- was claimed as the income of the injured, who was a hotel waiter, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹3,000/- as the monthly income of the appellant. The learned Counsel further submits that even going by 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 2006 is fixed at ₹5,500/- and sought for enhancement of the income fixed. In order to award a just and reasonable compensation and considering the principles laid down following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), I am inclined to re-fix the monthly income at ₹5,500/-

Permanent disability:- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in Ext.A20 disability certificate, though the percentage of disability was assessed as 30%, the tribunal had reduced the percentage of disability to 20%. The learned counsel further submitted that the doctor who issued Ext.A20 disability certificate was examined . On a perusal of the deposition of the doctor, who had issued Ext.A20, it is stated that the loss of eyesight is due to old retinal detachment and traumatic cataract. The doctor has not stated that the loss of eye sight is on account of the accident. Considering all the aspects, the tribunal has fixed the percentage of disability as 20%. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. Following the judgments of the apex court in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], the compensation payable under the head is recalculated thus: ₹1,71,600/- (5,500 x 12 x 13x 20%) as the total compensation payable towards loss of dependency. The tribunal has awarded an amount of ₹93,600/- under the head loss of dependency. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹78,000/- under the afore head.

Loss of earnings:- Considering the nature of injuries sustained, the period of twelve months taken by the tribunal appears to be reasonable. Since the notional income is re- fixed as ₹5,500, the compensation