Court reaffirmed that notional income for compensation claims should reflect judicial precedents, enhancing awards based on evidentiary assessments of disability and medical expenses.

JUDGMENT

[MACA No.3278 of 2015 & C.O.No.10 of 2016]

This appeal is filed by the 3rd respondent insurance company in O.P.(MV) No.806 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. The respondent herein was the claimant and the legal heirs of the original claimants. The Cross Objection No.10 of 2016 is filed by the claimant/legal heirs of the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: On 06.10.2013, at about 8.00 a.m., while the claimant was attempting to cross the road, a stage carriage bus bearing registration No.KL-34/B- 9599 hit on the claimant and as a result, he sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹12,00,000/-.

3. The first, second, third and additional fourth respondents were the owner, driver, insurer and the possessor of the offending vehicle respectively. Though notice was served on the first, second and additional fourth respondents, 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. Before the tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A11, Ext.X1 and Exts.B1 & 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 awarded a sum of ₹9,21,630/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs against the third respondent insurer and in default of payment as above, penal interest @ 11% per annum was also awarded. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded, the 3^rd respondent - insurance company and the claimants have approached this court with the above appeal and cross objection respectively.

4. Heard the learned standing counsel for the appellant/insurance company and the learned counsel for the claimants/cross objectors.

5. The learned standing counsel for the appellant/insurance company as well as the learned counsel for the cross objectors/claimants mainly disputed the quantum of compensation under the following heads:

I. Notional Income The learned counsel for the claimants/cross objectors submitted that though an amount of ₹10,000/- was claimed as the monthly income of the injured, who was running a tea shop, the tribunal had taken only ₹8,000/-. However, no document has been produced to prove the income or avocation of the injured. 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 ₹9,000/- for an accident in 2013 and sought enhancement of the income. Accordingly, 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 ₹9,000/-.

II. Loss of earnings Since the notional monthly income is re-fixed as ₹9,000/-, the total compensation payable under the said head would be re-calculated for a period of six months as ₹54,000/- (9,000 x 6). The tribunal had already awarded an amount of ₹48,000/- under the head loss of earnings. Thus there will be an additional amount of ₹6,000/- under the said head.

III. Bystander expenses The learned counsel for the cross objectors/claimants submitted that though an amount of ₹30,000/- was claimed towards the head bystander expenses, only an amount of ₹9,000/- was awarded by the tribunal. Hence, I am inclined to grant co