Court emphasized the need for fair compensation based on actual income and severity of injuries, over-turning the tribunal's lower assessment and applying judicial norms for just compensation.

JUDGMENT

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

No.243 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 23.03.2008 at about 11.10 a.m, while the claimant was travelling in a motorcycle bearing Reg. KL-38/5626 along the Pala- Thodupuzha road, a KSRTC bus bearing Reg. No.KL-15/4424 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit on the motorcycle, whereby the claimant sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹2,68,500/- limited to ₹75,000/-.

3. The first and second respondents/the driver and the registered owner of the offending vehicle, respectively, filed a written statement contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle and disputing the compensation claimed and denying negligence. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A25 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 ₹26,915/- with interest @8.5% per annum as compensation under different heads against the 2^nd respondent/ owner/KSRTC. 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 2^nd respondent/KSRTC.

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

Notional income:- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹4,000/- as the income of the injured, who was the assistant manager at the time of the accident. 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 one month. The claimant sustained a lacerated wound on the right foot 2 x 2 cm, a lacerated wound on the right hand 2 x 1 cm and fracture crown of central incisor. Considering the injuries sustained, I find that a period of three months can be taken 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 ₹19,500/- (6,500 x 3) is payable under the afore head. Since the tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹4,000/- under the afore head, there will be an additional amount of ₹15,500/- under the head loss of earnings.

Pain and sufferings:- The learned counsel for the appellant submits that though an amount of ₹20,000/- was claimed, the tribunal awarded only ₹12,000/- towards pain and suffering, which is on the lower side. Considering the injuries sustained by the appellant, I am inclined to grant a total amount of ₹20,000/- to the appellant as total compensation towards pain and suffering. Thus, the appellant will be entitled to get an additional amount of ₹8,000/- as compensation under this head.

Loss of amenities:- On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the Tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹5,000/- towards loss of a