Court re-evaluated negligence and compensation based on precedents, ruling contributory negligence was improperly attributed.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.1567 of

2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavur, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein are the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 07.04.2009 at about 05.30 pm, while the claimant was travelling as a pillion rider in a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-17-9055, another motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-7-AA-8864 ridden by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motorcycle in which the claimant was travelling. As a result of the accident, the appellant had sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming compensation of ₹4,48,000/- limited to ₹4,00,000/-.

3. The first respondent, who is the owner-cum-rider of the offending motorcycle, filed a written statement contending that the accident occurred due to the negligent riding of the motorcycle by the rider in which the claimant was a pillion rider. He further contended that he was holding a valid and effective driving licence and that the motorcycle was covered by a valid insurance policy with the second respondent. The second respondent, insurer of the offending vehicle, filed a written statement admitting the policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed as well as disputing the negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle wherein the claimant was pillion riding. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A11 and Ext.X1 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹1,08,288/- (45% of ₹2,40,640/-) with interest at 9% per annum as compensation under various heads against the 2^nd respondent/insurer of the offending motorcycle. 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/claimant and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent/insurance company.

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 ₹5,000/- was claimed as the income of the claimant, the tribunal had taken ₹4,500/- as the income of the injured. The learned counsel further submitted 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 as ₹7,000/-. Therefore, in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), I find it appropriate to fix the income at ₹7,000/-.

Loss of earnings :- Since the monthly income has been re-

fixed as ₹7,000/-, the compensation payable for loss of earnings for a period of six months is re-calculated as thus ₹42,000/- (7,000x6). The tribunal has awarded an amount of ₹27,000/- under the afore head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹15,000/- towards loss of earnings.

Loss of amenities :- The tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹20,000/- under the head loss of amenities. Considering the age of the appellant as well as the loss of enjoyment in life, I find that a total amount of ₹30,000/- can be granted towards loss of amenities. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹10,000/- under the afore head.

Pain and sufferings :- The tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹20,000/- under the head pain and sufferings.

Considering the age of the appellant as well as the nature of injuries, I find that a total amount of ₹30,000/- can be granted towards pain and sufferings. Th