The court can modify compensation awards based on a re-assessment of injury impact and income prospects, establishing fairness in monetary redress.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.37 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 11.05.2005 at about 7.20 a.m., while the claimant was travelling in an autorickshaw bearing reg. No. KL-07/AS 5411, a lorry bearing Reg.No.GJ 14/T 3648 driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit on the front side of the autorickshaw and thus the claimant sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming compensation of ₹16,46,000/- which was limited to ₹12,00,000/-.

3. The first and second respondents/ owner and the driver of the offending vehicle respectively, remained ex-parte before the tribunal. The fourth respondent was the insurer of the autorickshaw. The third respondent, insurer of the offending vehicle, filed a written statement contending that the 3^rd respondent has no liability to indemnify the insured or compensate the claimant, as there was no valid insurance policy in force at the time of the accident.

Although a policy was issued for vehicle No. GJ-14-T/3648 for the period from 19.07.2004 to 18.07.2005 on receipt of a premium cheque, the cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. It is further contended that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the goods autorickshaw No. KL-7-AS-5411, which hit the rear side of the lorry while overtaking, and not due to any negligence on the part of the lorry driver. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A13 and Exts.B1 to B7 documents were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹8,37,160/- with interest at 8% per annum as compensation under various heads against the respondents 1 and 2. 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 counsels appearing for the third and fourth respondents/insurance company. Though notice was served on respondents 1 and 2, they chose not to appear before this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is claiming only enhancement of compensation in this appeal. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company submits that the award was passed on

18.08.2011 and the appellant has not so far filed any execution petition seeking for execution of the award from the owner of the vehicle, though the insurer was exonerated from the liability.

6. 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, who was working as a work supervisor, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹3,000/-. 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 2005 is fixed as ₹5,000/-. 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 ₹5,000/-.

Loss of earnings :- On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the tribunal has awarded compensation for loss of earnings for a period of six