The court evaluated proper compensation assessment factors including income, loss of earnings, and suffering, emphasizing legal standards of adjudication in transport accidents.

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.989 of

2003 on the files of the I Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimant was that on 08.02.2003, while he was travelling in an autorickshaw, a KSRTC bus driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the autorickshaw, whereby he sustained serious injuries. He approached the tribunal claiming compensation.

3. Respondents 1 and 2, who are the owner and driver of the KSRTC bus respectively, filed separate objections before the tribunal, denying negligence on the part of the second respondent and disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Exts.A1 to A14 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 ₹41,500/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the first respondent KSRTC; and in default of payment as above, penal interest @ 9% per annum was also awarded. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal.

4. During the pendency of the appeal, the original appellant/claimant expired and his legal heirs were impleaded as additional appellants 2 to 4.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent KSRTC.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants claims enhancement under the following heads:

6.1. Notional income - The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the claimant was a bus conductor by profession, however, the tribunal did not fix the notional monthly income, but awarded a total compensation of ₹41,500/- under different heads, which is not porper. Admittedly, no document was produced by the claimant to prove income. Even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [ (2011) 13 SCC 236 ], for an accident that occurred in 2003, the monthly income of a coolie is fixed at ₹4,000/-. Considering the fact that the claimant was a bus conductor by profession, in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, I deem it appropriate to fix the monthly income of the claimant at ₹5,000/-.

6.2. Loss of earnings - The learned counsel for the appellants submits that due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the claimant could not go to work for almost one year, however, the tribunal has awarded only a consolidated compensation of ₹6,000/- towards loss of earnings, which is on a lower side. On a perusal of the impugned award, it is seen that the claimant sustained injury on the right eye jaws and fracture to the facial bone. It is also revealed that he underwent a major surgery and was on treatment for a long period. Considering all those aspects, though no documents have been produced to show that he underwent treatment for a long period, in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, I deem it appropriate to take ten months for awarding compensation for loss of earnings. Accordingly, the appellants will be entitled to get a total compensation of ₹50,000/- (5000 x 10) under this head. Thus, there will be an additional compensation of ₹44,000/- towards loss of earnings.

6.3. Pain and suffering - The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the tribunal awarded only ₹5,000/- towards pain and suffering, which is on the lower side. Considering the