Compensation must be just and reasonable, reflecting actual income and injuries sustained, aligning with judicial standards.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.67 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein are the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 15.10.2012 at about 07.00 pm, while the claimant was riding his motorcycle bearing reg. No. KL-5/N 3779, a car bearing registration No.KL-44-8906, driven by the 2^nd respondent, in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motorcycle. As a result of the accident, the appellant sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming compensation of ₹10,00,000/-.

3. The first respondent/owner and the second respondent/driver of the offending vehicle remained ex parte before the tribunal. The 3^rd respondent insurance filed a written statement admitting the policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed and denying negligence. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A16, Ext.B1 and Ext.C1 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹8,36,900/- 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 ₹5,000/- as the income of the injured who was a carpenter by profession. 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 2012 is fixed as ₹8,500/- and sought for enhancement of income. Although the appellant had claimed only ₹6,000/-, in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), I find it appropriate to refix the income at ₹8,500/-.

Loss of earnings :- Since the monthly income has been re-

fixed as ₹8,500/-, the compensation payable for loss of earnings for a period of ten months is re-calculated as thus ₹85,000/- (8,500x10). The tribunal has awarded an amount of ₹50,000/- under the afore head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹35,000/- towards loss of earnings.

Loss of amenities :- 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 ₹50,000/- 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 ₹70,000/- 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 ₹1,00,000/- was claimed, The tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹60,000/- 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 ₹75,000/- can be granted towards pain and sufferings. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹15,000/- under the afore head.

Extra nourishment :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though an amount of ₹20,000/- was claimed, The tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹3,000/- under the head extra nourishment. Considering the period of hospitalization, I find that a total amount of ₹4,800/- can be granted towards extra nourishment. Thus, there w