Determination of compensation for motor accident injuries based on evidence of income and assessment of losses.

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.145 of

2011 on the files of the II Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimant was that on 03.06.2009, while he was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-9-K-6510, a jeep bearing Reg.No.KL-9-H-6681 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, knocked him down, whereby he sustained serious injuries. He approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹4,58,000/-.

3. Respondents 1 and 2, who are the owner and driver of the offending vehicle respectively, remained ex parte before the tribunal. The third respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Exts.A1 to A13 series, X1 & B1 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of ₹2,65,900/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the third respondent being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer.

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

5.1. Notional income - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was working as Senior Executive Logistics (SEZ) at Robert BOSCH Engineering and Business Solutions Ltd., and was earning ₹48,000/- per month, however, the tribunal has fixed the monthly income notionally only at ₹5,000/- for the reason that he has not produced salary certificate to prove the income at the time of the accident. It is seen that the appellant produced Ext.A12 Income Tax Return, which reveals that he was working with the Robert BOSCH Engineering and Business Solutions Ltd. with an annual income of ₹4,81,982/-. Since he was permanently employed with an annual income of ₹4,81,982/-, I find it appropriate to follow the judgment in Raju Sebastian v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2021) 6 KLT 136]

refix the monthly income of the appellant at ₹24,000/-.

5.2. Loss of earnings - Since the monthly income of the appellant is refixed at ₹24,000/-, compensation towards loss of earnings for a period of five months has to be recalculated, which would come to ₹1,20,000/- (24000 x 5). Thus, the appellant will be entitled to get an additional compensation of ₹95,000/- towards loss of earnings.

5.3. Pain and suffering - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the tribunal awarded only ₹25,000/- towards pain and suffering, which is on the lower side. The appellant sustained a displaced fracture of midshaft right tibia with large butterfly fragment and fracture junction middle to distal third right fibula. Considering the injuries sustained by him and the sufferings that he had undergone, I am inclined to grant an amount of ₹30,000/- to the appellant as total compensation towards pain and suffering. Thus, the appellant will be entitled to get an additional amount of ₹5,000/- as compensation towards pain and suffering.

5.4. Loss of amenities - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the tribunal awarded only ₹25,000/- towards loss of amenities, which is on the lower side. Considering the injuries sustained by the appellant and the loss of enjoyment in life,