Court emphasizes the principle of just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, recalibrating notional income and assessing pain, suffering, and disability to ensure fair reparation for injuries sustained.

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.688 of

2012 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimant was that on 26.04.2012, while the claimant was attempting to board a bus bearing Reg.No.KL-07-BC- 7318, the bus was suddenly moved in reverse in a rash and negligent manner by the second respondent/driver, as a result of which, the claimant’s head forcefully struck against the bus, causing him to sustain serious injuries. He approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹12,00,000/-.

3. Respondents 1 and 2, who are the owner and driver of the offending vehicle respectively, remained ex parte before the tribunal. The third respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. PW1 & PW2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A9 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of ₹5,29,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the third respondent being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer.

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

5.1. Notional income - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was a vegetable vendor and was earning ₹8,000/- per month, however, the tribunal has fixed the monthly income notionally only at ₹5,000/-. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that 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 2012, the monthly income of a coolie is fixed at ₹8,500/- and seeks for an enhancement of the income fixed. Accordingly, in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), I deem it appropriate to refix the monthly income of the appellant at ₹8,500/-.

5.2. Loss of earnings - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he could not go to work for almost one year, however, the tribunal has taken only a period of five months for awarding compensation towards loss of earnings. The appellant sustained serious injuries including fractures to the frontal bone, right zygoma, maxilla and left temporal bone. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the age of the appellant, I am of the opinion that ten months can be taken for awarding compensation for loss of earnings. Accordingly, the appellant will be entitled to get a total compensation of ₹85,000/- (8500 x 10) under this head. Thus, there will be an additional compensation of ₹60,000/-

towards loss of earnings.

5.3. Pain and suffering - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the tribunal awarded only ₹60,000/- towards pain and suffering, which is on the lower side. Considering the injuries sustained by him and the sufferings that he had undergone, I am inclined to grant an amount of ₹1,25,000/- to the appellant as total compensation towards pain and suffering. Thus, the appellant will be entitled to get an additional amount of ₹65,000/- as compensation under this head.

5.4. Loss of amenities - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the tribunal awarded only ₹30,000/- towards