The court determined that inadequate compensation was awarded in light of established legal precedents on compensation claims for injuries.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.891 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Attingal, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimant is that on 09.03.2006 at about 8.35 p.m, while the claimant was standing in front of the hotel Tharavadu, Venjarammoodu, a motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KL-16/A-8921 ridden by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, knocked down the claimant, whereby the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹1,50,000/-.

3. The respondents 1 and 2, the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle, respectively, remained absent and were set ex-parte before the tribunal. The 3^rd respondent/insurer filed a written statement admitting the insurance policy but denying the negligence and disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A7 were marked. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a consolidated compensation of ₹8,000/- with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the respondent being the insurer; and in default of payment as above, penal interest @ 12% per annum was also awarded. 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 for the respondent insurer.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal has awarded only a consolidated amount of ₹8,000/- for the injury sustained in the accident; i.e. right metatarsal fracture. The learned counsel submitted that the claimant had undergone treatment for the fracture sustained to his right metatarsal and, therefore, was entitled to compensation under the heads claimed. However, the Tribunal found that though Ext.A5 treatment certificate had been produced, the said certificate was not carrying a date. However, it is mentioned in the treatment certificate that the diagnosis was in respect of a road traffic accident that occurred on 09.03.2006. However, a doubt is noted regarding a fracture of 5^th metatarsal right in the treatment certificate. On a perusal of Ext.A7, O.P.card, it is seen that he had undergone treatment at the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram on 16.03.2006 and the said document reveals that there was a fracture on the right metatarsal. Considering the same, I find that the appellant is entitled for compensation under the other heads such as loss of earnings, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, etc.

6. The appellant has filed this appeal claiming enhancement of compensation mainly under the following heads:-

Notional income :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the income claimed by the appellant was ₹5,000/-. However, as per 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 the year 2006 is fixed at ₹5,500/- per month and sought for enhancement of fixation of monthly income. In order to award a just and reasonable compensation and considering the principles laid down in Ramachandrappa (supra), I am inclined to re-fix the monthly income at ₹5,500/-

Loss of earnings:- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the claimant was 45 years at the time of the accident and had sustained a fracture to his right metatarsal and abrasions on the right knee and left side of the chest. Considering the injuries sustained, I find that a period of three m