The court upheld principles for calculating compensation in personal injury cases adjusting for lost income and suffering.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV)

No.1064 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 10.02.2012 at about 4:00 a.m, while the claimant was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KL 2AE 5766, a pickup van bearing Reg. No.KL 25 C 6027 driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the claimant. Whereby he sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹8,00,000/-.

3. The first and second respondents/ owner and the driver of the offending vehicle respectively, remained ex parte before the tribunal. The third respondent/insurance company filed a written statement admitting the insurance policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed and denying negligence. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A14 were marked. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a compensation of ₹2,73,793/- 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 though an amount of ₹25,000/- was claimed, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹6,000/- 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 two months. The claimant sustained the following injuries:-

1. Lacerated injury on the forehead 5 x 4 x 2cm

2. Lacerated wound over the nose 6x 2x 1cm

3. lacerated wound over left eyelid.

Considering the injuries sustained, I find that a period of six 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 ₹51,000/- (8,500 x 6)

is payable under the afore head. Since the tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹12,000/- under the afore head, there will be an additional amount of ₹39,000/- under the head loss of earnings.

Pain and suffering:- The learned counsel for the appellant submits that though an amount of ₹2,00,000/- was claimed, the tribunal awarded only ₹25,000/- towards pain and suffering, which is on the lower side. Considering the injuries sustained by the appellant, I am inclined to grant a total amount of ₹40,000/- to the appellant as a total compensation towards pain and suffering. Thus, the appellant will be entitled to get an additional amount of ₹15,000/- as compensation under this head.

Loss of amenities :- On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the Tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹19,200/- towards loss of amenities. Considering the fact that he was a motor mechanic and considering his loss of enjoyment in life, I find it appropriate to award a consolidated amount of ₹40,000/- under the head of loss of amenities. Thu