The court adjusted compensation for personal injury based on notional income and loss of amenities, affirming principles from prior jurisprudence.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.314 of

2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 09.04.2011 at about

01.00 p.m., while the claimant was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-7-BF-9509 along Aluva – Angamaly N.H.Road, a KSRTC bus driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner overtook the motorcycle and suddenly stopped and the front door opened for alighting the passengers, the front door of the KSRTC bus hit on the motorcycle and as a result, the claimant fell down and sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹9,29,000/- which is limited to ₹4,00,000/-.

3. The first and second respondents, the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle, though entered appearance, did not file any written statement. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A12 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, found that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the second respondent and the appellant/claimant was awarded a sum of ₹1,47,500/-, as compensation under different heads with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs from respondent 1 being the owner. 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 appearing for the respondent/KSRTC.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant claims enhancement mainly under the following heads:

I. Notional Income The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though an amount of ₹11,000/- was claimed as the monthly income of the appellant, who was doing painting contract work, the tribunal had taken only ₹4,000/-. The learned counsel further submitted that even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [ 2011 (13) SCC 236 ], the monthly income of a coolie is taken at ₹8,000/- for an accident in 2011 and sought enhancement of the income. Accordingly, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra) and in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, I find it appropriate to re-fix the notional monthly income at ₹8,000/-.

II. Loss of earnings The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal has taken only a period of ten months for awarding compensation under the head loss of earnings. The appellant sustained the following injuries:

i) Open fracture right tibia and fibula ii) Fracture base of right 5^th Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, I find that a period of eleven months can be taken for awarding compensation under the head loss of earnings. Since the notional monthly income is re-fixed as 8,000/-, the total compensation payable under the said head would be re- calculated as ₹88,000/- (8,000 x 11). The tribunal had already awarded an amount of ₹40,000/- under the head loss of earnings. Thus there will be an additional amount of ₹48,000/-

under the said head.

III. Bystander expenses The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though an amount of ₹15,000/- was claimed by the appellant towards the head bystander expenses, the tribunal had granted only ₹10,000/- for seventy seven days in-patient treatment. Considering the year of accident as well as the period of hospitalisation, I am inclined to gra