Court must ensure just compensation for injuries sustained, considering income and relevant precedents.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P.(MV) No. 50 of

2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punalur, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 21.04.2006, while the claimant was travelling in a bus bearing Reg. No. KL- 15/5945 from Kottarakara to Thiruvananthapuram, driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner and as a result of which the claimant fell down from the seat and sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹3,00,000/-.

3. The first respondent/driver of the bus remained ex-

parte before the tribunal. The second respondent/owner of the bus filed a written statement denying negligence of the first respondent and disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A17 documents were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹38,370/- with interest at 7.5% per annum as compensation under various heads against the respondent insurer; 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. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned standing counsel for the respondent insurer. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants claims enhancement mainly under the following heads:-

Notional income :- The learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that the claimant was working as an Assistant Field Officer in the Agricultural department and was earning an amount of ₹11,125/-. The learned counsel for the claimant produced the photocopy of the certificate dated 01.07.2025 along with the memo dated 02.07.2025 and the original of the said certificate was handed over to me. On a perusal of the said certificate, the total gross amount is shown as ₹11,125/-. In view of the judgment in Raju Sebastian v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [ (2021) 6 KLT 136 ], I find that 50% of the income can be taken for assessing compensation. Following the judgment in Raju Sebastian (supra), since the salary of the appellant was ₹11,125/-, I find it appropriate to fix the monthly income at ₹5,562.5/- rounded to ₹5,560/-.

Pain and sufferings :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal awarded an amount of ₹6,000/- towards the head pain and suffering, which is on the lower side. Considering the injuries sustained, I am inclined to grant an additional amount of ₹9,000/- totalling to an amount of ₹15,000/- under the afore head.

Loss of amenities :- The tribunal has not awarded any amount 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 of ₹15,000/- can be awarded under the afore head.

Extra nourishment :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹1,050/- under the head extra nourishment. Considering the nature of injuries sustained, I find it appropriate to award a consolidated amount of ₹1,500/- under the afore head. Thus an additional amount of ₹450/- is awarded under the extra nourishment.

Permanent disability :- Since the notional income is fixed at ₹5,560/- and following the judgments in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662(SC)] and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], the compensation payable under this head is re-calculated thus: ₹22,017.60/- (5560 x 12 x 11 x 3/100). The tribunal has already awarded an amount of ₹11,800/- und