The court emphasized proper assessment of compensation, correcting discrepancies in tribunal calculations regarding income, injuries, and consequent financial loss due to traffic accident.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.517 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam, seeking enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 18.12.2012, while she was walking through the Sasthamcotta road and waited for crossing the road, a jeep bearing Reg.No.KL-02-K-355, driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit her and threw her onto the road, whereby she sustained serious injuries. She approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹10,50,000/- which was limited to ₹10,00,000/-.

3. The respondents 1 and 2 being the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle, remained ex-parte before the tribunal. The 3^rd respondent insurer filed a written statement admitting the policy, but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A25 and Ext.C1 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹3,08,580/- with 9% interest from the date of petition till realization, as compensation under different heads against the 3^rd 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/claimant and the learned standing counsel for the respondent insurance company.

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

Notional income :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though an amount of ₹15,000/- was claimed as the income of the injured, who was a member of National Employment Security Scheme, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹4,000/-. No documents have been produced to prove her income. The learned counsel submitted 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 that occurred in the year 2012, is fixed as ₹8,500/- and seeks enhancement of the income fixed. In order to award a just and reasonable compensation, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), I find it appropriate to fix the income at ₹8,500/-

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 five months. The claimant sustained (1)deep lacerated head injury, (2)Abrasion all over the body and (3)Loss of tooth. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained, I find that a period of six months can be taken for awarding compensation under the afore head. Accordingly, the total compensation payable under the head loss of earnings is re-calculated to ₹51,000/- (8500 x 6). The tribunal has already awarded an amount of ₹20,000/- under the afore head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹31,000/- under the under the head loss of earnings.

Bystander expenses :- On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹3,450/- under the head bystander expenses. Considering the age of the appellant as well as the period of hospitalization, I find that a total amount of ₹4,600/- at the rate of ₹200/- for 23 days, can be granted towards bystander expenses. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹1,150/- under the afore head.

Extra nourishment :- On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹2,300/- under the head extra nourishment. Considering the age of the appellant as well as the period of hospitalization, I find that a total amount of ₹4,600/- at the rate of ₹200/- per day for 23 days, can be granted to