The court re-evaluated compensation in motor accident claims based on prior judgments regarding income assessment and injury severity.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.1282 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondent herein was the 2^nd respondent before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimant is that on 24.05.2014 at about 4.45 hours, while the claimant was travelling in an autorickshaw bearing Reg.KL 39/F-9197, a car bearing Reg. No. KL 16/H-3610 driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the autorickshaw. As a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹13,96,000/- limited to ₹7,00,000/-.

3. The first respondent/ owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle filed a written statement contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant himself and they further submitted that the first respondent held a valid driving licence and prayed for the dismissal of the original petition. The 2^nd respondent- insurer also filed a written statement admitting the insurance policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed and denying negligence. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A8 and Exts. B1 and B2 were marked. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a compensation of ₹3,26,850/- under different heads with interest @9% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the 2^nd 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 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 ₹12,000/- was claimed as the income of the claimant who was an autorickshaw driver by profession and was having a badge to drive a light motor vehicle, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹8,000/- as his 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 2014 is fixed at ₹9,500/- and sought for enhancement of the income. Considering the fact that the injured was an autorickshaw driver by profession, I find it appropriate to re-fix the monthly income at ₹10,500/-.

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 four months. The claimant sustained the following injuries:-

(1) Comminuted fracture right femur shaft.

(2) Tenderness and deformity right thigh.

(3) Pain right knee and right shoulder.

(4) multiple supervision abrasion over right hand dorsum, right foot dorsum and right face.

Considering the nature of injuries sustained, I find that taking a period of five months would be just and reasonable for awarding compensation under the said head. Since the notional income is fixed as ₹10,500, I find that a total amount of ₹52,500/- (10,500 x 5) is payable under the afore head. Since the tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹32,000/- under the afore head, there will be an additional amount of ₹20,500/- under the head loss of earnings.

Pain and suffering:- The learned counsel for the appellant submits that though an amount of ₹1,00,000/- 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 t