The court revised compensation calculations based on established legal principles and case law regarding income, injuries, and disability.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.1191 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimant is that on 08.08.2010, at about 6.40 p.m, while the claimant was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-07/AW 4390, a lorry bearing Reg.No.TN- 21/Q-3340 driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the claimant’s motorcycle, whereby he sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹3,64,000/- limited to ₹3,50,000/-

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, PWs1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A12 and Ext.B1 were marked. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a compensation of ₹1,89,200/- under different heads with interest @7.5% 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 ₹7,000/- was claimed, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹3,500/- 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 the Coolie for an accident in 2010 is fixed at ₹7,500/- and sought for enhancement of the income. In order to award just and reasonable compensation following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), I find it appropriate to refix the income as ₹7,500/-.

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 eight months. The claimant sustained injury such as Vascular injury and arthrodesis injury (L) knee. Considering the nature of injuries sustained, I find that taking a period of eight months is reasonable for awarding compensation under the said head. Since the notional income is fixed as ₹7,500, I find that a total amount of ₹60,000/- (7,500 x 8) is payable under the afore head. Since the tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹28,000/- under the afore head, there will be an additional amount of ₹32,000/- under the head loss of earnings.

Pain and suffering:- The learned counsel for the appellant submits that though an amount of ₹25,000/- was claimed, the tribunal awarded only ₹20,000/- 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 ₹20,000/- as compensation under this head.

Loss of amenities :- On a perusal of the award, it is seen that though an amount of ₹15,000/- was claimed, the Tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹10,000/- towards loss of amenities. Considering his loss of enjoyment in life, I find it appropriate to award a consolidated amount of ₹40,000/-