The judgment establishes principles for calculating compensation in personal injury claims, emphasizing the significance of accurate assessment of income and damages.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.1392 of

2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondent herein is the second respondent before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 30.11.2013 at about 1.35 p.m., while the claimant a minor aged 17 years, was pillion riding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-07-AW-1161 through Athirappilly – Chalakudy public road, a car bearing registration No.AP-28-AF-5043 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motorcycle whereby the claimant sustained serious injuries. The claimant, represented by his father, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹5,00,000/-.

3. Though notice was served on the first respondent, the owner-cum-driver of the car, remained absent and was set ex parte before the tribunal. The second respondent - insurer filed a written statement, admitting the insurance policy, disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A11 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, found that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the first respondent and awarded a sum of ₹2,86,000/-, as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs against the second 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 and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent insurer.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant claims enhancement mainly under the following heads:

I. Notional Income The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though an amount of ₹15,000/- was claimed as the monthly income of the appellant, who was a glass designer by profession, the tribunal had taken only ₹5,000/-. 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 monthly income of a coolie for an accident in 2013 is taken at ₹9,000/- and that the same may be adopted for the claimant who was a minor aged 17 years, and accordingly sought enhancement of the income. Considering the afore facts in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, I find it appropriate to re-fix the notional monthly income at ₹9,000/-.

II. Loss of earnings Since the monthly income is re-fixed at ₹9,000/-, the total compensation payable under the said head would be ₹54,000/- (9,000 x 6). The tribunal had already awarded an amount of 30,000/- under the head loss of earnings. Thus there will be an additional amount of ₹24,000/- under the said head.

III. Loss of amenities The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal had granted an amount of ₹20,000/- towards the head loss of amenities, which is on the lower side. Considering the age of the appellant and also the loss of enjoyment in life, I am inclined to grant an additional amount of ₹20,000/- towards the afore head. Thus the total compensation payable under the said head would be ₹40,000/-.

IV. Extra nourishment:

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the tribunal had granted only an amount of ₹1,600/- towards the head extra nourishment. Considering the year of accident as well as the period of hospitalisation, for awarding compensation, I am inclined to take ₹250/- per day for sixteen days inpatient treatment, tota