Court modified the compensation amount based on statutory guidelines and established precedents to ensure justice for the claimant in an accident case.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.351 of

2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondent herein is the 3^rd respondent before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimant is that on 01.03.2012 at about 12.20 p.m, while the claimant was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg. KL-2/AD 2811, a car bearing Registration No.KL- 16/H 942 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the claimant. Whereby, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹3,00,000/-.

3. The first and second respondents were the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle respectively, wherein the second respondent the 2^nd respondent remained ex parte before the tribunal. The first respondent/owner filed a written statement contending that the amount of compensation is exorbitant. The third respondent, the insurance company, filed a written statement admitting the policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. It was further contended that both the rider and the driver of the vehicle were equally responsible for the accident and, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the application. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A24 were marked. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a compensation of ₹88,703/- under different heads with interest @9% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the 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 for the respondent insurer.

5. The appellant has filed this appeal challenging compensation under the following heads:-

Notional income :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that although an amount of ₹6,000/- was claimed, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹5,000/- as the monthly income. The learned Counsel further submits 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 2012 is fixed at ₹8,500/- and sought for enhancement of the income. In order to award a just and reasonable compensation and considering the principles laid down in Ramachandrappa (supra), I am inclined to re-fix the monthly income at ₹8,500/-

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

(1)Abrasion + on right forehead, nose, (Left)

cheek, left hand, left elbow, left foot and right foot.

(2) Lacerated wound of 2 cm x 0.5 cm + on occipital bone.

Considering the injuries sustained, I find that a period of three months is reasonable for awarding compensation under the head loss of earnings. Since the notional income is fixed as ₹8,500, I find that a total amount of ₹25,500/- (8,500 x 3) is payable under the afore head. Since the tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹15,000/- under the afore head, there will be an additional amount of ₹10,500/- under the head loss of earnings.

Loss of amenities :- On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of amenities. Considering the injuries sustained by the appellant and the loss of enjoyment in life, I deem it appropriate to award a total compensation of ₹25,000/-

towards loss of amenities.

Extra nourishment :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though an amount of ₹5,000/- was claimed, The tribun