Court clarified compensation assessment need be just and reasonable, reflecting actual earning capacity and genuine losses due to injury, with emphasis on proper recalibration based on presented evidence.

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.1402 of 2014 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimant was that on 06.07.2014, while he was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-08/AZ/4877, an autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-08/AY/7655 driven 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 ₹10,00,000/-.

3. Respondents 1 and 2, who were the owner and driver 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. 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 ₹5,48,215/- 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 was a qualified electrician and was earning ₹15,000/- per month, however, the tribunal has fixed the monthly income notionally only at ₹6,500/-. 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 2014, the monthly income of a coolie is fixed at ₹9,500/- and seeks for an enhancement of the income fixed. The appellant had produced Ext.A5 diploma certificate before the tribunal to substantiate the contention that the appellant was a qualified electrician.

Considering Ext.A5 certificate, I deem it appropriate to refix the monthly income of the appellant at ₹11,500/-.

5.2. Loss of earnings - Since the monthly income of the appellant is refixed at ₹11,500/-, compensation towards loss of earnings for a period of eight months has to be recalculated, which would come to ₹92,000/-. The tribunal has already awarded ₹52,000/- under this head. Thus, the appellant will be entitled to get an additional compensation of ₹40,000/- towards loss of earnings.

5.3. Permanent disability - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that for assessing compensation towards permanent disability, the tribunal fixed the percentage of disability at 25% based on Exts.A3 and A4 certificates. It is argued that as per Ext.A3, there is complete loss of vision in the right eye; and insofar as loss of eyesight is concerned, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is to be taken as 30% as per the Workmen’s Compensation Act . It is also submitted that as per Ext.A4 disability certificate, the percentage of disability in respect of other injuries is 11%; and hence, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, for the purpose of assessing compensation towards permanent disability, the tribunal ought to have fixed the percentage of disability at more than 30%. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel fo