The court recalibrated compensation owing to improper assessment of notional income and multiplier in prior tribunal judgment.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.309 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein are the respondents before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimant is that on 01.02.2011 at about 8.30 p.m, while the claimant was riding on the rear side of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-7/AL 1269, an autorickshaw bearing Registration No.KL-38/1138 driven by the third respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the motorcycle, whereby, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹14,48,000/- limited to ₹10,00,000/-.

3. The respondents 1 to 3/ the owner, insured and the driver of the offending vehicle respectively, remained ex parte before the tribunal. The 4^th respondent/insurer filed a written statement admitting the insurance policy but disputing the quantum of compensation and denying liability. It was further contended that the accident was solely due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A23 were marked. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a compensation of ₹7,33,726/- rounded to ₹7,33,800/- under different heads with interest @8% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the fourth 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 ₹15,000/- was claimed, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹4,000/- as the monthly income, who was working as a Supervisor at the time of the accident. 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 2011 is fixed at ₹8,000/- and sought for enhancement of the income. Since the injured, who was aged 23 years at the time of the accident, sustained 45% disability, following the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi & Ors [2017 (4) KLT 662 SC], 40% future prospects are to be added to the notional income for the calculation of permanent disability. By adding 40% future prospects, I find that the monthly income will be ₹11,200/- (8,000 + 40% of 8,000) for the purpose of awarding compensation towards permanent disability.

Permanent disability- On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the tribunal has wrongly adopted the multiplier as

17 instead of 18. Following Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], I find that the correct multiplier to be adopted is 18 since the appellant was aged 24 years. Since the monthly income is refixed as ₹11,200/- after adding future prospects, following the judgments in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma (supra), the compensation payable under the head permanent disability is recalculated thus; ₹10,88,640/- (₹11,200 x 12x 18 x 45%) as the total compensation payable. Since the tribunal has awarded an amount of ₹3,67,200/- under the afore head, there will be an additional amount of ₹7,21,440/- under the head permanent disability.

Loss of earnings:- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that for awarding c