Court modifies compensation awarded in an accident case based on recalibrated notional income, enhancing total compensation to ensure justice for the claimant.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.205 of

2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 11.03.2000 at about

12.00 a.m., while the claimant was travelling in an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-7-V-3054 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, through Vypin – Munambam road, swerved the vehicle towards left without proper care and lost control over the vehicle and thereby hit against a telephone post, as a result of the accident, the claimant sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹13,65,000/- which is limited to ₹10,00,000/-.

3. The first and second respondents were the owner-cum-

driver and the insurer of the offending vehicle respectively. The first and second respondents filed a written statement, admitting the insurance policy, disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. They denied the negligence attributed on the part of the first respondent in causing the accident. Before the tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A17 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, found that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the first respondent and the appellant/claimant was awarded a sum of ₹4,62,302/-, as compensation under different heads with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs against the second 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 and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent insurer.

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

I. Notional Income The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though an amount of ₹10,000/- was claimed as the monthly income of the appellant, who was doing Prawn filtration work, the tribunal had taken only ₹3,000/- which is on a lower side. The claimant was examined as PW1 before the tribunal and deposed that he was earning an amount of ₹10,000/- per month. Considering the afore facts and in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, I find it appropriate to re-fix the notional monthly income at ₹5,000/-.

II. Loss of earnings Since the notional monthly income is re-fixed as ₹5,000/-, the total compensation payable under the said head would be re-calculated for a period of 7 months as ₹35,000/- (5,000 x 7). The tribunal had awarded an amount of ₹21,000/- under the said head. Thus there will be an additional amount of ₹14,000/- under the head loss of earnings.

III. Loss of amenities On a perusal of the award, it is seen that although an amount of ₹1,50,000/- was claimed towards loss of amenities, the tribunal had granted only ₹20,000/-. Considering the age of the appellant as well as the loss of enjoyment in life, I find that a total amount of ₹30,000/- can be granted towards loss of amenities. Thus there will be an additional amount of ₹10,000/- under the head loss of amenities.

IV. Extra nourishment The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was hospitalized for a period of eighty days. However, the tribunal had granted only ₹2,000/- for eighty days in- patient treatment. On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the tribunal had granted ₹7,500/- for attendant expenses.

Considering afore fact and the period of hospitalisation, I am inclined to grant a total amount ₹7,500/- under the afore head. Hence there will be an additional enhancement of ₹5,500/-

under the head extra nourishment.

V. Compensation for permanent disability Since