Compensation for motor accident claims can be enhanced based on a formal assessment of income and injury severity, while considering contributory negligence.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.612 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, seeking enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 28.06.2014 at about

6.00 p.m., while the claimant was riding his motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-57-E-8307, another motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-57-G-8022 ridden by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle and sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹3,00,000/-.

3. The first and second respondents/the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle, respectively, remained ex- parte before the tribunal. The third respondent/insurer of motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-57-G-8022, filed a written statement admitting the insurance policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. The liability was denied contending that there was A charge and B charge. The fourth respondent/insurer of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-57- E-8307 filed a written statement admitting policy but disputing the liability as it was an act only policy. The fifth respondent/ owner of the motorcycle bearing reg. No. KL-57- G-8022, filed a written statement denying the claimant’s negligence. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A6, Ext.C1 and Exts.B1 to B4 documents were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹1,79,920/- rounded as ₹1,80,000/- with interest @8% per annum as compensation under different heads. The third respondent insurer was directed to deposit 50% of the said amount, since A charge and B charge was framed against the riders of both the motorcycles. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal.

4. I have heard Sri. A.V.M. Salahuddeen, the learned counsel for the appellant, Smt. Divya B Nair, the learned counsel for the first respondent, Sri.P.Bharathan, the learned standing counsel for the third respondent and Sri. John Joseph, the learned standing counsel for the fourth respondent.

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 ₹20,000/- was claimed, the tribunal had taken the income only at ₹7,000/-. 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 2014 is fixed as ₹9,500/- and sought for enhancement of income. Considering the afore facts, 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 ₹9,500/-

Loss of earnings :- On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the tribunal had taken only a period of two months for awarding compensation under the head loss of earnings.

Following were the injuries sustained:

(1) Multiple facial bone fractures, (2) Bleeding from nose, (3) Fracture proximal humerous right shoulder and (4) Facial disfigurement.

Considering the nature of the injuries sustained, I find that a period of five months can be taken for awarding compensation under the afore head. Accordingly, the total compensation payable under the head loss of earnings is re- calculated to ₹47,500/- (9500 x 5). The tribunal has already awarded an amount of ₹14,000/- under the afore head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹33,500/- under the under the head loss of earnings.

Pain and su