The court recalibrated the compensation awarded post-injury by considering enhanced earning potential and established legal standards for damages.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.81 of

2012 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein are the respondents before the tribunal. 2. According to the claimant, on 18.08.2011 at about 09.30 am while the claimant was riding a motorcycle bearing reg. No. KL09/Y/9049, a lorry bearing registration No KEH/1593, driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle. As a result of the accident, the appellant had sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming compensation of ₹14,53,000/- limited to ₹10,00,000/-.

3. The first respondent/owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte before the tribunal. The 2^nd respondent/driver of the offending vehicle filed a written statement contending that he was not negligent in driving the vehicle. It was further contended that the accident occurred owing to the negligence and over-speeding of the claimant, and the quantum of compensation claimed was also disputed. The third respondent, insurer of the offending vehicle, filed a written statement admitting the policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A20 and Exts.B1 and X1 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹2,59,704/- rounded to ₹2,60,000/- with interest at 9% per annum as compensation under various heads against the 3rd respondent/insurer of the offending vehicle. 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 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 the appellant was a PWD (B) Class contractor and though an amount of ₹40,000/- was claimed as the income of the claimant, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹5,000/- 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 2011 is fixed as ₹8,000/-. The learned counsel further submits that in the award the tribunal has found that the average monthly income of the appellant would be ₹35,000/- relying on Exts.A18 to A20 income tax filed for the period 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12.

On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that, though the claimant was a PWD (B) Class contractor, he had not adduced any evidence to prove that there was any reduction in his income.

On a perusal of the award in paragraph 19, the tribunal has found that the claimant was a PWD (B) class contractor. The tribunal has also found that the average monthly income of the appellant would be ₹35,000/-. The accident was on 18.08.2011. Even the annual return for the year 2011-2012 also did not reflect any reduction in his income. However, fixation of the income by the tribunal at ₹5,000/- appears to be on the lower side. Admittedly, no evidence, other than the production of documents, was adduced by the claimant. Considering the avocation of the petitioner, in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, I find it appropriate to refix the income at ₹20,000/-.

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 three months. The appellant had sustained a fracture shaft of right femur and fracture right maxilla. Considering