Court modifies compensation claim based on assessed income, disability, and pain, awarding an additional amount of ₹6,89,000.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.462 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery, seeking enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 13.07.2003, while she was travelling in a car bearing Reg.No.KL-13/D2919 driven by the 1^st respondent, in a rash and negligent manner, who lost control of the vehicle and collided with a bus bearing Reg.No.10/N 5745. As a result of the collision, the claimant sustained serious injuries and the claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹5,00,000/-.

3. The respondents 1 and 2 being the driver and the owner of the car, 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 and denying liability. Before the tribunal, PWs1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A9 and Ext.X1 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹7,21,450/- with 7.5% interest (excluding interest on future bystander expenses and future treatment) 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 ₹4,500/- was claimed as the income of the injured, who alleged to be a tailor by profession, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹1,750/-. 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 an ordinary labourer, for an accident that occurred in the year 2003, is fixed as ₹4,000/- and seeks enhancement of the income fixed. On a perusal of the award, it is seen that no document has been produced to prove the avocation or the income. In order to award a just and reasonable compensation, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), I find it appropriate to re-fix the income at ₹4,000/-

Permanent disability :- The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurer had specifically raised a contention that the age of the claimant was not 35 years at the time of accident. Pursuant to the direction of this court, the appellant appeared online 11.02.26, since she was assessed 100% disability and she responded aptly to the queries raised by this court. When specifically asked about her age, she stated that her year of birth was 1963 and she repeated the same. No other document was produced to prove her age except Ext.A7, the Election Identity Card. On a perusal of Ext.A7, a copy of which was handed over to me, it is seen that her year of birth is shown as 1968. However, while appearing online, she stated that her year of birth was 1963. Hence, I am inclined to consider her age as 40 years at the time of the accident. Since the appellant/claimant was found to be 100% disabled, by adding 25% future prospects as per National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662(SC)], to the income now fixed, the amount will be ₹5,000/- for awarding compensation under the head permanent disability. Following the judgments in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporat