The court modified the tribunal's compensation decision by recalculating the notional income and addressing various heads of claims to ensure just and reasonable compensation for the appellant's injuries.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.561 of

2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 10.08.2011 at about

07.25 p.m., while the claimant was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-7/K-7089 through Chalikkadavu – Kizhakkekkara public road, another motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-7/Z-6146 ridden by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the motorcycle in which the claimant was riding and as a result of the accident, the claimant sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹20,00,000/-. 3. Though notice was served on the first and second respondents, the rider and the owner 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, Exts.A1 to A13 and Ext.C1 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 first respondent and the appellant/claimant was awarded a sum of ₹10,41,823/- which is rounded to ₹10,41,900/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 8% 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 though an amount of ₹15,000/- was claimed as the monthly income of the appellant, who was a heavy duty driver, the tribunal had taken only ₹4,500/- which is on a lower side. 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 ₹8,000/- for an accident in 2011 and sought enhancement of the income. The learned counsel relied on Exts.A11 and A13 receipts issued from the Kerala Motor Transport Worker’s Welfare Fund Board to show that he was a member of the Board. However, no document has been produced to prove the avocation or the income of the appellant. On a perusal of Ext.A10, the copy of driving licence, it is seen that he had a licence to drive heavy vehicles. Considering the afore facts and in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, I find it appropriate to re-fix the notional monthly income at ₹10,000/-.

II. Loss of earnings Since the notional monthly income is re-fixed as ₹10,000/-, the total compensation payable under the said head would be re-calculated for a period of twelve months as ₹1,20,000/- (10,000 x 12). The tribunal had awarded an amount of ₹54,000/- under the said head. Thus there will be an additional amount of ₹66,000/- under the head loss of earnings.

III. Extra nourishment The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though an amount of ₹1,00,000/- was claimed by the appellant towards the head extra nourishment, the tribunal had granted only ₹25,000/- for 219 days in-patient treatment. Considering the period of hospitalisation, I am inclined to grant a consolidated amount of ₹40,000/- under the afore head. Hence there will be an additional enhancement of ₹15,000/- under the head extra nourishment.

IV. Bystander expen