Assessment of compensation must be reasonable and reflect actual earnings, injuries sustained, and precedents for justifiable enhancements for pain and suffering.

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.639 of

2011 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimant was that on 15.04.2011, while he was riding pillion on a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-45-A-422, another motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-45-D-2482 ridden by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle, whereby he sustained serious injuries. He approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹6,33,000/-.

3. Respondents 1 and 2, who are the owner and rider 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. PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A16 & B1 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 ₹2,42,750/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization, 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. 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, who was aged 39 years at the time of the accident, was a tapper and electrician and was earning ₹7,500/- per month, however, the tribunal has fixed the monthly income notionally only at ₹5,000/-. 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 2011, the monthly income of a coolie is fixed at ₹8,000/- and seeks for an enhancement of the income fixed. Accordingly, in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), I deem it appropriate to refix the monthly income of the appellant at ₹8,000/-.

5.2. Loss of earnings - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant could not go to work for almost eight months, however, the tribunal has taken only a period of five months for awarding compensation towards loss of earnings. The appellant sustained serious injuries including fracture to both bones of right leg. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the age of the appellant, I am of the opinion that six months can be taken for awarding compensation for loss of earnings. Accordingly, the appellant will be entitled to get a total compensation of ₹48,000/- (8000 x 6) under this head. Thus, there will be an additional compensation of ₹23,000/- towards loss of earnings.

5.3. Bystander expenses - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was hospitalized for a period of 54 days, however, the tribunal awarded a consolidated compensation of ₹5,000/- towards bystander expenses, which is on the lower side. Considering the fact that the accident was in the year 2011, I deem it appropriate to take ₹250/- per day towards bystander’s expenses. Accordingly, he will be entitled to get a total compensation of ₹13,500/-

(250 x 54) towards bystander expenses. Thus, there will be an additi