The calculation of compensation should consider updated income standards and the claimant's specific circumstances, reflecting on long-term consequences of injuries sustained.

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.1161 of 2011 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimant was that on 30.05.2011, while she was walking along the Pala - Kozha road, an autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-35-5940 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit her, whereby she sustained serious injuries. She approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹5,00,000/-.

3. Respondents 1 and 2, who are the driver and owner of the offending vehicle respectively, remained ex parte before the tribunal. The third respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A10 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of ₹1,63,350/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the third respondent being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal.

4. I have 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 under the following heads:

5.1. Notional income - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was a daily labourer, however, the tribunal has fixed the monthly income notionally only at ₹5,000/-. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that 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 2011, the monthly income of a coolie is fixed at ₹8,000/- and seeks for an enhancement of the income fixed. Accordingly, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), I deem it appropriate to refix the monthly income of the appellant at ₹8,000/-.

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 eight months, however, the tribunal has taken only a period of five months for awarding compensation towards loss of earnings. The appellant sustained severe head injuries including acute intra parenchymal haematoma and acute extra dual haematoma. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the age of the appellant, I am of the opinion that six months can be taken for awarding compensation for loss of earnings. Accordingly, the appellant will be entitled to get a total compensation of ₹48,000/- (8000 x 6) under this head. Thus, there will be an additional compensation of ₹23,000/- towards loss of earnings.

5.3. Pain and suffering - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the appellant claimed ₹1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, the tribunal awarded only ₹30,000/-. Considering the injuries sustained by her and the sufferings that she had undergone, I am inclined to grant an amount of ₹40,000/- to the appellant as total compensation towards pain and suffering. Thus, the appellant will be entitled to get an additional amount of ₹10,000/- as compensation towards pain and suffering.

5.4. Loss of amenities - Though the appellant claimed an amount of ₹1,00,000/- under this head, the tribunal awarded only an amount of ₹15,000/-, which, according to the appellant, is on the lower side. Considering th