Compensation for injuries must reflect reasonable income assessment and account for disability, loss of earnings, and sufferings.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.410 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 18.02.2003 at about 10.30 a.m., while the claimant was travelling in a Tempo Trax Jeep bearing reg. No. KL-01-J-5044, the vehicle was stopped for her to alight. As she was getting down from the vehicle, the 2nd respondent drove the vehicle forward in a rash and negligent manner, causing an accident in which the claimant sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming compensation of ₹6,00,000/-, limited to ₹5,00,000/-.

3. The first respondent/owner and the second respondent/driver of the offending vehicle filed a joint written statement admitting the accident but disputing the compensation claimed. The 3^rd respondent/insurer remained ex parte before the tribunal. Before the tribunal, PW1 was examined, and Exts.A1 to A13 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹1,21,270/- with interest at 9% per annum as compensation under various heads against the 3^rd respondent/insurer of the offending motorcycle. 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/claimant and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent/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 tribunal had taken ₹3,000/- as the income of the injured, who was a homemaker. It is further submitted that, 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 2003, is fixed as ₹4,000/- and sought for enhancement of income. Although the appellant had claimed only ₹3,000/-, to award just and reasonable compensation, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), I find it appropriate to fix the income at ₹4,000/-.

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 two months. The claimant has sustained multiple fractures, including the fracture of the T12 spine and the fracture of the head, and limitation of rotation of the forearm. Considering the nature of injuries sustained, I find that a period of six months can be taken for awarding compensation under the afore head. Since the monthly income has been re-fixed as ₹4,000/-, the compensation payable for loss of earnings for a period of six months is re-calculated as ₹24,000/- (4,000x6). The tribunal has awarded an amount of ₹6,000/- under the afore head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹18,000/- towards loss of earnings.

Loss of amenities:- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though an amount of ₹50,000/- was claimed, the tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹17,280/- under the head loss of amenities. Considering the age of the appellant as well as the loss of enjoyment in life, I find that a total amount of ₹30,000/- can be granted towards loss of amenities. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹12,720/- under the afore head.

Pain and sufferings:- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though an amount of ₹1,00,000/- was claimed, the tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹20,000/- under the head pain and sufferings. Considering the age of the appellant as wel