Court emphasized proper assessment of income and disability in compensation calculations for personal injuries.

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.292 of

2011 on the files 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 was that on 14.02.2011, while he was walking along NH-17 public road, a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-8-G-1383 ridden by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit him, whereby he sustained serious injuries. He approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹4,00,000/-.

3. Respondents 1 and 2, who are the rider and owner of the offending vehicle respectively, remained ex parte before the tribunal. The third respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A11 & B1 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the rider of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of ₹2,43,235/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the third respondent being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer.

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

5.1. Notional income & permanent disability - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was aged above 16 years at the time of the accident; however, the tribunal assessed compensation towards permanent disability without fixing notional monthly income and following the judgment of the apex court in Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. & another [2014 (14) SCC 396] on the premise that the appellant was aged 15 years at the time of the accident, which is per se illegal. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant handed over to me a copy of Annex.A10 Statement of Marks. It is seen from Annex.A10 that the date of birth of the appellant is, “16.09.1994”, which reveals that the appellant crossed the age of 16 at the time of the accident. Since he was aged above 16 years at the time of the accident, I hold that the compensation towards permanent disability has to be assessed using the multiplier method, for which notional monthly income of the appellant has to be fixed.

5.1.1. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236] , for an accident that occurred in 2011, the monthly income of a coolie is fixed at ₹8,000/- and seeks for an enhancement of the income fixed. Accordingly, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, I deem it appropriate to refix the monthly income of the appellant at ₹8,000/-.

5.1.2. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that as per Ext.A8 disability certificate, permanent disability of the appellant was assessed as 12%, which was reduced by the tribunal to 7% while assessing compensation. It appears that Ext.A8 was proved through PW1, the doctor who issued the same. The reasoning of the tribunal does not appear to be acceptable in view of the judgment of the apex court in Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar [2011 (1) KLT 620 SC] and