The assessment for compensation in motor accident claims relies on notions of income, earning loss, and suffering.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.425 of

2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondent herein was the second respondent before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 16.01.2015 at about

06.20 p.m., while the claimant was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-7/BP-2357 through Kottayam – Kumarakom public rod, another motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-5/AJ- 4244 ridden by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked the motorcycle in which the claimant was riding and as a result, the claimant sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹10,68,000/- which is limited to ₹6,00,000/-.

3. Though notice was served on the first respondent, the driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle, he remained absent and was set ex parte before the tribunal. The second respondent - insurer filed a written statement, admitting the insurance policy, disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A13 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 first respondent and the appellant/claimant was awarded a sum of ₹2,24,350/-, as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs against the second 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 appearing for the respondent insurer.

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 ₹15,000/- was claimed as the monthly income of the appellant, who was a technician by profession, the tribunal had taken only ₹9,000/- which is on a lower side. The learned counsel relied on Ext.A12 Diploma certificate in Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, issued by the Institute of Radio and Television, and submitted that the income claimed by the appellant is just and reasonable. The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company, on the other hand, submitted that no document has been produced to prove the income or avocation of the appellant other than Ext.A2 Certificate. However, considering the fact that the claimant was a diploma holder and in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, I find it appropriate to re-fix the notional monthly income at ₹11,000/-.

II. Loss of earnings The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal has taken only a period of four months for awarding compensation under the head loss of earnings. The appellant sustained a comminuted fracture of both bones right leg. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, I find that a period of six months can be taken for awarding compensation under the head loss of earnings. Since the notional monthly income is re-fixed as ₹11,000/-, the total compensation payable under the said head would be re- calculated as ₹66,000/- (11,000 x 6). The tribunal had already awarded an amount of ₹36,000/- under the said head. Thus there will be an additional amount of ₹30,000/- under the head loss of earnings.

III. Bystander expenses The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that the tribunal had granted ₹5,000/- for twelve days in-patient treatment. Considering the year of accident as well as the period of hospitalisation