The adjudication on compensation adjustments mandates the court evaluate not just negligence but also appropriate multipliers for disability, ensuring just reparation following injury.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.39/2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 24.07.2006 at about 4.00 p.m., while the claimant was pillion riding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-01-AD-8058 through Thirumalabhagom – Kumbalangi public road, a private bus bearing registration No.KL-01/D-3933 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motorcycle and thereby the claimant sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹2,00,000/-.

3. The first and second respondents, the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle respectively, filed a joint written statement contending that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. The third respondent - insurer filed a written statement admitting the insurance policy, disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. They contended that the driver of the motorcycle was not having a valid driving licence 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 awarded a sum of ₹1,74,109/-, (10% of 1,93,454) as compensation under different heads with interest @ 8% 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 third 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 contended that the injured was a student aged 20 yeras at the time of the accident; however, the tribunal fixed the income at ₹2,500 per month, which is on the lower side. 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 ₹5,500/-, for an accident in 2006 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 ₹5,500/-.

II. Loss of studies The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that due to the injuries sustained, he could not continue his studies for a period of six months. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the injured was hospitalized for a total period of 63 days on different occasions. Following are the injuries sustained:

i) Fracture acetabulam with central dislocation ii) Fracture pelvis iii) Fracture both bone right forearm.

Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, I find that a period of six months can be taken for awarding compensation under the said head. Since the notional monthly income has been re-fixed at ₹5,500/-, the total compensation payable under the head loss of studies would be ₹33,000/- (5,500 x 6).

III. Loss of amenities On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the tribunal had awarded only an amount of ₹20,000/- towards the head loss of amenities in life, which is on the lower side. Considering the age and loss of enjoyment in life, I find that the appellant will be entitled for an additional amount of ₹5,000/- und