Court modified compensation amount based on reassessment of injuries and income as established by precedents.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.776 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II (Add. District Judge-II), Pathanamthitta, 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 04.02.2009 at about 11.45 a.m, while the claimant was driving a car bearing Reg. No.KL-3/L-9412 from Plankamon to Trivandrum, a KSRTC bus bearing Reg. No.KL-15/6994 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the car. As a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹5,00,000/-.

3. The first, second and third respondents were the driver, owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle, respectively. The second respondent filed a written statement contending that the alleged accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1^st respondent and further contended that the injured was not holding an effective driving licence at the time of the accident. The third respondent - insurance company filed a written statement admitting the insurance policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. It was contended that the insured did not reduce the vehicular documents before the insurer due to which he violated policy conditions. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A16 and Ext.B1 were marked. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a compensation of ₹1,80,800/- under different heads with interest @9% 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, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent KSRTC and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent 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 ₹8,000/- was claimed as the income of the injured, who was a driver by profession, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹4,000/- 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 2009 is fixed at ₹7,000/- and sought for enhancement of the income fixed. Considering the fact that the injured was a driver by profession, I find it appropriate to re-fix the monthly income at ₹8,000/-

Loss of earnings:- Considering the nature of injuries sustained, the period of five months taken by the tribunal appears to be reasonable. Since the notional income is re- fixed as ₹8,000, the compensation payable under the head is recalculated thus: ₹40,000/- (8,000 x 5). Since the tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹20,000/- under the afore head, there will be an additional amount of ₹20,000/- under the head loss of earnings.

Extra nourishment- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though the claimant had undergone in-patient treatment for 51 days, the Tribunal awarded only an amount of ₹5,000/- under the said head. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained and the period of treatment undergone, I find that a total amount of ₹10,000/- ought to be awarded towards extra nourishment. Since the Tribunal has already awarded ₹5,000/-, the claimant is entitled to an additional amount of ₹5,000/- under the head extra nour