Court enhanced compensation by adjusting notional income and applying precedents to ensure fair reparation for accident injuries.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.836 of

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

2. According to the claimant, on 23.03.2012 at about

10.00 p.m., while the claimant was travelling in an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-5/W-5552 through Vaikom – Moothedathukavu public road, lost control of the vehicle due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent and as a result, the autorickshaw turned upside down, thereby the claimant sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹5,92,000/- which is limited to ₹4,00,000/-.

3. Though notice was served on the first and second respondents, the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle respectively, they remained absent and were set ex parte before the tribunal. The third respondent - insurer filed a written statement, admitting the insurance policy, disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. They contended that the appellant was not having a valid permit at the time of accident. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A12 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 the appellant/claimant was awarded a sum of ₹1,31,990/-, as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs 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. 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 ₹18,000/- was claimed as the monthly income of the appellant, who was a daily labourer, the tribunal had taken only ₹6,000/-. 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 is taken at ₹8,500/- for an accident in 2012 and sought enhancement of the income. Accordingly, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra) and in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, I find it appropriate to re-fix the notional monthly income at ₹8,500/-.

II. Loss of earnings The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal has taken only a period of four months for awarding compensation under the head loss of earnings. The appellant sustained the following injuries:

i) Lacerated wound right knee 3 x 2 cm ii) Open fracture of the patella Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, I find that a period of seven months can be taken for awarding compensation under the head loss of earnings. Since the notional monthly income is re-fixed as 8,500/-, the total compensation payable under the said head would be re- calculated as ₹59,500/- (8,500 x 7). The tribunal had already awarded an amount of ₹24,000/- under the head loss of earnings. Thus there will be an additional amount of ₹35,500/-

under the said head.

III. Extra nourishment The learned counsel for the appellant submits that though an amount of ₹5,000/- was claimed by the appellant towards the head extra nourishment, the tribunal had grante