The court emphasized the need for just and adequate compensation reflecting the claimant’s actual losses, adjusting the amounts for income assessment and injury severity.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.1414 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondent herein was the 3^rd respondent before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimant is that on 04.07.2013 at about 7.15 p.m, while the claimant was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-45-4955, a car bearing Reg No.KL-63- 7122 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the motorcycle driven by the claimant. As a result of the said accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹7,59,000/- limited to ₹3,50,000/-. 3. The first and second respondents/ driver and the owner of the offending vehicle respectively, remained ex parte before the tribunal. The third respondent/insurance company filed a written statement admitting the insurance policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed and negligence. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A11, and Ext.B1 were marked. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a compensation of ₹2,61,400/- under different heads with interest @9% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the 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 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer.

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

Notional income :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though an amount of ₹15,000/- was claimed as the income of the appellant, who was a bakery employee, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹5,000/- as the monthly income. The learned Counsel further submits that even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236] , the income of an ordinary person for an accident in 2013 is fixed at ₹9,000/- and sought for enhancement of the income. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that in the FIS also it is stated that the appellant was employed in a bakery as a cake designer. Though no document was produced to establish his income, taking into consideration the statement in the FIS and the nature of his work as a cake designer in a bakery, I find it appropriate to refix his income as ₹10,000/-.

Loss of earnings:- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that for awarding compensation under the head loss of earnings, the tribunal has taken only a period of four months. The claimant sustained the following injuries:-

1. Acute EDH

2. Fracture of right parietal & petrous temporal bones

3. Acute SDH left.

4. Diffuse SAH Considering the injuries sustained, I find that a period of six months is to be taken for awarding compensation under the head loss of earnings. Since the notional income is fixed as ₹10,000, I find that a total amount of ₹60,000/- (10,000 x 6) is payable under the afore head. Since the tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹20,000/- under the afore head, there will be an additional amount of ₹40,000/- under the head loss of earnings.

Extra nourishment- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though the claimant had undergone in-patient treatment for 17 days, the Tribunal awarded only an amount of ₹1,000/- under the said head. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained and the period of treatment undergone, I find that a consolidated amount of ₹5,000/- ought to be awarded towards extra nourishment. Since the Tribunal ha