The court ruled that an accident victim's notional income should be adjusted to reflect current standards, allowing for additional claimed compensation while emphasizing proper documentation requirements for distribution of awarded amounts.

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.1215 of 2011 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondent herein was the third respondent before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimant was that on 03.05.2011, while he was riding pillion on a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-45-9080, an autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-45-E-9006 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle, whereby he sustained serious injuries. He approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹4,00,000/-.

3. Respondents 1 and 2, who were the driver and owner 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 A11 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 ₹2,52,695/- 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 24 years at the time of the accident, was earning ₹6,000/- 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 severe osteoarthritis (post traumatic) of left ankle, replantation of left foot and leg, limitation of dorsiflexion and plantar flexion of left ankle and weakness of dorsiflexion and plantar flexion etc. 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. Since the tribunal already awarded ₹25,000/-, 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 26 days, however, the tribunal awarded a consolidated compensation of ₹3,000/- 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 enti