The court emphasized the necessity of accurately assessing compensation claims and remanded liability questions to the tribunal for further examination.

JUDGMENT

MACA Nos.132 of 2020, 225 of 2020 and 3643 of 2020 arise from the very same award dated 04.10.2019 in O.P.(MV) No.867 of 2014 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta. MACA No.132 of 2020 filed by the 2^nd respondent/insurer of the offending vehicle challenging the liability to pay 50% of the award amount and MACA No.225 of 2020 filed by the 1^st respondent/owner of the offending vehicle challenging liability to pay the remaining 50% of the compensation awarded. MACA No.3643 of 2020 is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation and also challenging the finding of 50:50 contributory negligence on R1 and R2. Since these appeals arise from the same cause of action, they are heard together and are disposed of by this judgment. For brevity, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the tribunal.

2. The facts of the case are as follows:

On 05.05.2014 at about 09.45 pm, while the claimant was walking through the side of the public road, a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-27-C-970 ridden by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the claimant. As a result of the accident, the claimant had sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹4,00,250/-.

3. Before the tribunal, the 1st respondent, who is the owner-

cum-rider of the offending vehicle, filed a written statement contending that the vehicle was duly insured with the 2nd respondent as on the date of the accident. The 1st respondent also disputed the quantum of compensation claimed. The 2^nd respondent insurer filed a written statement contending that there was no valid insurance policy to the offending vehicle at the date of accident. It was further contended that they had not issued any cover note or insurance policy to the alleged vehicle belonging to the 1^st respondent and therefore their impleadment was unnecessary. Before the tribunal DWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A9, Exts.B1 to B6 and Ext.X1 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹3,46,590/- as compensation under different heads with interest @9% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs equally against the respondents 1 and 2 being the owner and insurer.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants, the learned counsel for the owner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company.

5. The learned counsel for the claimant in MACA No.3643 of

2020 is mainly claiming enhancement of the award under the following heads :-

Notional income :- The learned counsel for the claimant submits that the claimant was a painter by profession and was earning ₹16,000/- per month, however, the tribunal has fixed the monthly income notionally only at ₹9,000/-. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that since the claimant was a skilled worker, the income claimed was reasonable and hence, seeks for an enhancement of the income fixed. It is also pointed out that in Ext.Al First Information Statement also, the claimant has stated that he is a painter by profession. Admittedly, no document was produced by the claimant to prove income. 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 20l4, the monthly income of a coolie is fixed at ₹9,500/-. However, considering the fact the claimant was a painter, which was recorded in Ext.A1 FIS as well, I deem it appropriate to refix the monthly income of the claimant at ₹11,000/-.

Loss of earnings - The learned counsel for the claimant submits that the claimant was a painter by profession and due to