The court re-evaluated compensation based on established precedents, adjusting notional income and permanent disability percentages to enhance the claimant's total award fairly.

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.1070 of 2010 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimant was that on 05.04.2010, while he was standing in his purayidam on the western side of Kulasekharapathy - Pammam public road, a JCB excavator bearing Reg.No.KL-03-M-585 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit him, whereby he sustained serious injuries. He approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹7,60,250/-.

3. Respondents 1 and 2, who are the driver and owner 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. 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 ₹1,66,600/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the third respondent being the insurer; and in default of payment as above, penal interest was also awarded. 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 an agriculturist and was earning ₹30,000/- per month, however, the tribunal has fixed the monthly income notionally only at ₹6,000/-. 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 2010, the monthly income of a coolie is fixed at ₹7,500/- and seeks for an enhancement of the income fixed. Accordingly, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), I deem it appropriate to refix the monthly income of the appellant at ₹7,500/-.

5.2. Loss of earnings - Since the monthly income of the appellant is refixed at ₹7,500/-, compensation towards loss of earnings for a period of three months has to be recalculated, which would come to ₹22,500/-. Thus, the appellant will be entitled to get an additional compensation of ₹4,500/- towards loss of earnings.

5.3. Pain and suffering - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the appellant claimed ₹1,80,000/- towards pain and suffering, the tribunal awarded only ₹25,000/-. Considering the injuries sustained by him and the sufferings that he had undergone, I am inclined to grant an amount of ₹40,000/- to the appellant as total compensation towards pain and suffering. Thus, the appellant will be entitled to get an additional amount of ₹15,000/- as compensation towards pain and suffering.

5.4. Loss of amenities - Though the appellant claimed an amount of ₹1,30,000/- under this head, the tribunal awarded only an amount of ₹20,000/-, which, according to the appellant, is on the lower side. Considering the injuries sustained by the appellant and the loss of enjoyment in life, I deem it appropriate to award a total compensation of ₹35,000/- towards loss of amenities. Thus, the appellant will be entitled to get an additional amount of ₹15,000/- towards loss of amenities.

5.5