The court modified the compensation awarded by the tribunal based on a reassessed monthly income and more accurate calculations for permanent disability and loss of amenities.

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.364 of

2018 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vatakara, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimant was that on 20.08.2017, while the claimant was travelling in a bus bearing Reg.No.KL-18-C-9540 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, the bus dashed against a car, whereby he sustained serious injuries. He approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹10,00,000/-.

3. Respondents 1 and 2, who are the owner and driver 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 & C1 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 driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of ₹6,57,872/- rounded off to ₹6,57,900/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the third respondent being the insurer. However, no interest was awarded on the compensation granted for future treatment. 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 - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was an automobile mechanic and was earning ₹20,000/- per month, however, the tribunal has fixed the monthly income notionally at ₹11,000/-, which is on the lower side. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on Exts.A7 to A9 documents and the deposition of the PW1/appellant to substantiate the contention that the appellant was an automobile mechanic and was earning ₹20,000/- per month. Considering the age and avocation of the appellant, I deem it appropriate to refix the monthly income of the appellant at ₹15,000/-.

5.2. Loss of earnings - Since the monthly income of the appellant is refixed at ₹15,000/-, compensation towards loss of earnings for a period of six months has to be recalculated, which would come to ₹90,000/-. Thus, the appellant will be entitled to get an additional compensation of ₹24,000/- towards loss of earnings.

5.3. Loss of amenities - Though the appellant claimed an amount of ₹1,00,000/- under this head, the tribunal awarded only an amount of ₹50,000/-, which, according to the appellant, is on the lower side. The appellant sustained left inter trochanteric fracture and right shoulder tenderness. Considering the injuries sustained by the appellant and the loss of enjoyment in life, I deem it appropriate to award a total compensation of ₹75,000/- towards loss of amenities. Thus, the appellant will be entitled to get an additional amount of ₹25,000/- towards loss of amenities.

5.4. Permanent disability - Since the monthly income of the appellant is refixed at ₹15,000/-, compensation towards permanent disability has to be recalculated. Accordingly, applying the above standards and following the judgments of the apex court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662(SC)] and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], the appellant will be e