Court modified the tribunal's compensation for injuries, finding notional income and loss assessments inadequate, necessitating additional awards for permanent disability and amenities based on updated calculations.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.1684 of

2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 24.04.2002 at about 7.30 a.m., while the claimant was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle, he was struck down by a car bearing Registration No. KL-2-G-8740, driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner. As a result of the accident, he had sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming compensation of ₹3,05,500/-.

3. The first respondent is the owner cum driver of the offending vehicle who remained ex parte before the tribunal. The 2^nd respondent filed a written statement admitting the policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed as well as the validity of driving licence. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A9 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹1,76,750/- with interest at 7.5% per annum as compensation under various heads against the 2^nd respondent/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 appearing for the respondent/insurer. 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 ₹5,000/- was claimed, the tribunal had taken only ₹3,000/- as the income of the injured, who was a self employed. It is further submitted that, 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 in 2002, is fixed as ₹3,500/- and sought for enhancement of income. Following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), I find it appropriate to refix the income at ₹3,500/-.

Loss of earnings:- Since the monthly income has been re-

fixed as ₹3,500/-, the compensation payable for loss of earnings for a period of 6 months is re-calculated as ₹21,000/- (5,500x6). The tribunal has awarded an amount of ₹18,000/- under the afore head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹3,000/- towards loss of earnings.

Loss of amenities:- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though an amount of ₹17,500/- was claimed, the tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹10,000/- under the head loss of amenities. Considering the age of the appellant as well as the loss of enjoyment in life, I find that a total amount of ₹25,000/- is to be granted towards loss of amenities. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹15,000/- under the afore head.

Permanent disability/loss of earning power:- Since the notional income is fixed as ₹3,500/-, following the judgments in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662(SC)] and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], the compensation payable for permanent disability is recalculated as: ₹85,680/- (3,500x12x17x12/100)) towards permanent disability. The tribunal has awarded an amount of ₹73,440/- under the head permanent disability. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹12,240/- under the head permanent disability.

6. Though the appellant claimed enhancement of compensation under the other heads, on a perusal of the records available, I am not inclined to interfere with the compensation awarded by the tribunal under other heads since it appears to be just and reasonable. Since the appeal is of the year 2015, I find it appropriate to fix the interes