The court enhanced compensation by recalibrating the claimant's notional income and adjudicated on specific injury claims to ensure just and reasonable recompense following a motor accident.

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.2525 of 2015 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondent herein was the second respondent before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimant was that on 02.07.2015, while he was riding pillion on a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-39-C597 ridden by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, it hit another motorcycle, whereby he sustained serious injuries. He approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹15,00,000/-.

3. The first respondent, who was the owner-cum-rider of the offending vehicle, remained ex parte before the tribunal. The second respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Exts.A1 to A15 & X1 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 rider of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of ₹7,68,700/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the second 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 was working as a supplier in a hotel and was also a part-time B.Com student, however, the tribunal has fixed the monthly income notionally only at ₹10,000/-, which is on the lower side. Considering the fact that the appellant was a B.Com student and was also doing a part-time job, I deem it appropriate to refix the monthly income of the appellant at ₹11,000/-.

5.2. Loss of earnings - Since the monthly income of the appellant is refixed at ₹11,000/-, compensation towards loss of earnings for a period of six months has to be recalculated, which would come to ₹66,000/-. Since the tribunal has already awarded an amount of ₹60,000/- towards loss of earnings, the appellant will be entitled to get an additional compensation of ₹6,000/-.

5.3. Permanent disability - Since the monthly income of the appellant is refixed at ₹11,000/-, compensation towards permanent disability has to be recalculated. Accordingly, following the judgments of the apex court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662(SC)] and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], the appellant will be entitled to get a total compensation of ₹95,040/- (11000 x 12 x 18 x 4%) towards permanent disability. Since the tribunal already awarded ₹86,400/-, there will be an additional amount of ₹8,640/- under the head of permanent disability.

5.4. Disfiguration - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the appellant claimed a compensation of ₹50,000/- towards disfiguration, no compensation was awarded by the tribunal. Considering the injuries sustained by the appellant, I find it appropriate to award a compensation of ₹25,000/- towards disfiguration.

6. Though the appellant claimed enhancement of compensation under other heads as well, on a perusal of the records available and the impugned award, I am not inclined to interfere with the same since it appears to be just and reasonable.

7. Since the appeal is of the year 2020, I fix interest on the enhanced compensation @ 8% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization. Thus, the c