Court emphasized the need for reasonable compensation for personal injuries and updated assessment of notional income to meet fairness standards, enhancing total awarded amount accordingly.

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the claimant in OP(MV)

No.324 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 12.01.2008, while the claimant was travelling in a bus bearing Registration No. KL-10-L-5548 from Parappanangadi to Malappuram, driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, a lorry bearing Registration No. KL-10-E-542, driven by the 4^th respondent in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the bus, resulting in the accident. The claimant, a traveller in the bus sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹2,50,000/- limited to ₹2,00,000/-.

3. The respondents 1 to 3 were the driver, owner and the insurer of the offending bus, respectively and respondents 4 to 6 were the driver, owner and the insurer of the offending lorry respectively. Before the tribunal 1^st respondent remained ex parte. The 2^nd respondent filed a written statement contending that the accident did not occur due to any negligence on the part of the 1^st respondent- driver of the bus. The 3rd and 6th respondents/insurers filed a written statement admitting the insurance of the bus and the lorry, but denying the quantum of compensation claimed. Respondents 4 & 5 did not file any written statement. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A5 and X1 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 drivers of the offending vehicles and awarded a sum of ₹3,06,323/- rounded to ₹3,06,500/- with interest @9% per annum as compensation under different heads against the 3rd and 6th respondents, being the insurers of the bus and the lorry respectively in a 50:50 ratio. 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 respective Standing Counsels for the respondents –

insurers.

5. The appellant claims enhancement mainly under the following heads :-

Notional income:- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though an amount of ₹4,000/- was claimed, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹3,500/- as the monthly notional income of the injured. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted 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 worker for an accident in 2008 is fixed at ₹6,500/- and sought for enhancement of the income. In order to award just and reasonable compensation following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), I find it appropriate to refix the income as ₹6,500/-.

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 three months. The claimant sustained the following injuries:-

“ Injury to elbow (fracture compound), Vascular injury, compound fracture dislocation right elbow, injury to lips, froncal region, injury right knee.”

Considering the injuries sustained, I find that a period of seven months will be reasonable for awarding compensation under the head loss of earnings. Since the notional income is fixed as ₹6,500, I find that a total amount of ₹45,500/- (6,500 x 7) is payable under the afore head. Since the tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹10,500/- under the afore head, there will be an additional amount of ₹35,000/- under the head loss of earnings.

P