The court emphasized the necessity for just and reasonable compensation in motor accident claims, adjusting income and assessment of damages according to established precedents.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.1003 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad, seeking enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 23.10.2007, while he was riding his motorcycle, a lorry bearing Reg.No.RJ 11 GA 1075 driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against his motorcycle and thus the claimant was dragged along the NH for about four kilometers and thus he sustained serious injuries. He approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹9,00,000/-.

3. The respondents 1 and 2 being the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle, remained ex-parte before the tribunal. The 3^rd respondent insurer filed a written statement denying the validity of the vehicular documents but later produced Ext.B1 policy covering the insurance coverage, and it is also contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant himself. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A12 and Exts.B1 and X1 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹2,31,650/- with 9% interest from the date of petition till realization, as compensation under different heads against the 3^rd 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/claimant and the learned standing counsel for the respondent insurance company.

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

Notional income :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though an amount of ₹6,000/- was claimed as the income, the tribunal has taken only an amount of ₹3,500/-. The learned counsel submitted that even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd [2011 (13) SCC 236] , the income of a Coolie, for an accident that occurred in the year 2007 is fixed as ₹6,000/- and seeks enhancement of the income fixed. In order to award a just and reasonable compensation, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), I find it appropriate to fix the income at ₹6,000/-

Loss of earnings/Partial loss of earnings :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that for awarding compensation under the head loss of earnings and partial loss of earnings, the tribunal had taken only a period of six months. The claimant has sustained several injuries including burn injuries on the right foot and exposed metatarso- phalangeal joint, loss of tissue around ankle and foot lateral aspect on the left leg with exposed calcaneum, fifth toe amputation and radial nerve paralysis left arm with loss of wrist extension. Considering the nature of injuries sustained, I find that a period of nine months can be taken for awarding compensation under the afore head. Accordingly, the compensation under the afore heads is re-calculated: ₹54,000/-(9000 × 6). The tribunal had already awarded a consolidated amount of ₹31,500/- towards loss of earnings and partial loss of earnings. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹22,500/- under the afore two heads.

Pain and sufferings :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though an amount of ₹1,00,000/- was claimed, the tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹25,000/- under the head pain and sufferings. The appellant has produced photographs along with I.A. No. 1 of 2023 as Annexure A1 photographs. It shows the actual condition of the injuries sustained by the appellant. Considering Annexure A1 photographs and the age of the appellant, I find i