The court establishes criteria for reassessing compensation in motor accident claims, focusing on income, injuries, and precedential judgments.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.1208 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 19.09.2013 at about 05.30 pm, while the claimant was riding a motorcycle bearing reg. No. KL-46-D- 4352, a jeep bearing registration No.KL-5-C-239, driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the motorcycle. As a result of the accident, the claimant sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming compensation of ₹4,64,000/-, limited to ₹2,50,000/-.

3. The first respondent/owner-cum-driver and the third respondent/insured of the offending vehicle remained ex parte before the tribunal. The 2^nd respondent/insurer filed a written statement admitting the validity of the policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A8 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹1,01,700/- with interest at 9% per annum as compensation under various heads against the 2^nd respondent/insurer of the offending vehicle. 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 though an amount of ₹20,000/- was claimed, the tribunal had taken ₹5,000/- as the income of the injured, who was working as a manager in Thalikulam Beach Resort. 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 2013, is fixed as ₹9,000/- and sought for enhancement of income. Following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), in order to award just and reasonable compensation, I find it appropriate to fix the income at ₹9,000/-.

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 appellant had sustained fracture of medial malleolus (R), lacerated wound right forearm (6x2x1 cm) and haematoma right foot. Considering the nature of injuries sustained, I find that a period of four months can be taken for awarding compensation under the afore head. Since the monthly income has been re-fixed as ₹9,000/-, the compensation payable for loss of earnings for a period of four months is re-calculated as ₹36,000/- (9,000x4). The tribunal has awarded an amount of ₹10,000/- under the afore head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹26,000/- 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 ₹10,000/- 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 ₹20,000/- under the afore head.

Pain and sufferings:- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though an amount of ₹60,000/- 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 well as the nature of injuries, I find that a total amount of ₹40,0