The court enhanced the compensation for injuries sustained in an accident, emphasizing the proper assessment of notional income and disability, resulting in an additional ₹96,240/- compensation awarded with specified interest.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.1595 of

2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 24.12.2007, while the claimant was travelling as a passenger in an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-8/W-8703, the autorickshaw overturned due to the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent – driver and as a result, the claimant sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹1,25,000/-.

3. Though notice was served on the first and second respondents, the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle respectively, they remained absent and were set ex parte before the tribunal. The third respondent - insurer filed a written statement, admitting the insurance policy, disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. They contended that the second respondent was not having a valid driving licence at the time of accident. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A11 & Exts.B1 and B2 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 second respondent and the appellant/claimant was awarded a sum of ₹77,646/-, as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs against the third respondent being the insurer and further recover the same from the first respondent – owner. 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.

Though notice was issued to the first respondent, they chose not to appear before this court.

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 an amount of ₹4,000/- was claimed as the monthly income of the appellant, who was working at the Government Mental Hospital Canteen, and the tribunal had taken the same amount as the monthly income. The learned counsel further submitted that even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236] , the monthly income of an ordinary worker is taken at ₹6,000/- for an accident in 2007 and sought enhancement of the income. Although the claim of monthly income was only for ₹4,000/-, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra)

and in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, I find it appropriate to re-fix the notional monthly income at ₹6,000/-.

II. Loss of earnings The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though an amount of ₹20,000/- was claimed by the appellant towards loss of earnings, the tribunal had granted only ₹8,000/-. The appellant sustained the following injuries:

i) Comminuted fracture lower 1/3 (L) Humerous ii) Abrasion right arm, left knee iii) Avulsion Left big toe nail Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, I find that a period of five months can be taken for awarding compensation under the head loss of earnings. Since the notional monthly income is re-fixed as ₹6,000/-, the total compensation payable under the said head would be re-

calculated as ₹30,000/- (6,000 x 5). The tribunal had awarded an amount of ₹8,000/- under the said head. Thus there will be an additional amount of ₹22,000/- under the head loss of earnings.

III. Pain and sufferings The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that tho