Court may enhance compensation in motor accident claims while considering just and reasonable criteria for notional income and other losses.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.1352 of

2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondent herein was the third respondent before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 12.04.2013 at about

10.00 p.m., while the claimant was travelling in a car bearing registration No.KL-40-E-2015 through M.C. Road, an offending lorry bearing registration No.KL-40-B-4715 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the car and as a result, the claimant sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹4,77,000/-.

3. Though notice was served on the first and second respondents, the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle respectively, they remained absent and were set ex parte before the tribunal. The third respondent - insurer filed a written statement, admitting the insurance policy, disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A13 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, found that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the second respondent and the appellant/claimant was awarded a sum of ₹1,17,511/-, as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs against the third 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 appearing for the respondent insurer.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant claims enhancement mainly under the following heads:

I. Notional Income The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was aged 19 years at the time of accident and was studying for a three year Diploma course in Tool and Die Making at NTTF, Keltron Training Centre, Malappuram. However, the tribunal did not take the monthly income of the appellant while awarding compensation, on the ground that he was a student at the time of accident. The learned counsel further submitted that even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236] , the monthly income of an ordinary worker is taken at ₹9,000/- for an accident in 2013 and sought enhancement of the income. Accordingly, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra) and in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, I find it appropriate to re-fix the notional monthly income at ₹9,000/-.

II. Loss of studies The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that due to the injuries sustained, he could not continue his studies for a period of one year. Following are the injuries sustained:

i) Fracture on right leg ii) Fracture of 3^rd meta carpel base iii) Right leg fracture of shaft of tibia iv) Multiple abrasion with lacerated wound on the face v) Severe pain and shock Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, I find that a period of five months can be taken for awarding compensation under the head loss of studies. Since the notional monthly income is fixed as ₹9,000/-, the total compensation payable under the said head would be re-

calculated as ₹45,000/- (9,000 x 5).

III. Pain and sufferings The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though an amount of ₹50,000/- was claimed towards the head pain and sufferings, only an amount of ₹25,000/- was awarded by the tribunal. Considering the age a