Compensation for injuries in motor accidents must adequately reflect the claimant's actual losses, including notional income, permanent disability, and loss of amenities.

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.355 of

2018 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, N.Paravur, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondent herein was the third respondent before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimant was that on 19.01.2018, while the claimant was riding a scooter bearing reg. No. KL-42/F-9052, a van bearing Reg.No.KL-42-E-1759 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the claimant’s scooter, whereby she sustained severe injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹5,00,000/-.

3. The first respondent/owner and the second respondent/driver of the offending vehicle remained absent and was set ex parte before the tribunal. The third respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but denying negligence and disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. Exts.A1 to A9 & 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 second respondent and awarded a sum of ₹2,26,200/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% 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 tailor and was earning ₹15,000/- per month, however, the tribunal has fixed the monthly income notionally only at ₹10,000/-. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer points out that in the FIS it is stated that the appellant was a student. Considering the facts of the case, I am inclined to fix the notional monthly income of the appellant following the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236] , wherein for an accident that occurred in 2018, the monthly income of a coolie is fixed at ₹11,500/-. Accordingly, I refix the monthly income of the appellant at ₹11,500/-.

5.2. Loss of earnings/loss of studies - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the tribunal has not awarded compensation under this head and even if the appellant was treated as a student, the tribunal ought to have granted compensation towards loss of studies. A perusal of Ext.A6 discharge summary and Ext.A8 disability certificate, which were handed over to me at the time of hearing, reveals that there was fracture of the greater tuberosity of the left shoulder. However, the tribunal, considering the injuries sustained by the appellant as abrasion on both legs and tenderness of the left shoulder, has not awarded compensation under this head. Considering the fact that the appellant sustained a fracture to the greater tuberosity of the left shoulder, which is revealed as per Exts.A6 and A8, I find it appropriate to take a period of four months for awarding compensation for loss of earnings/studies. Accordingly, the appellant will be entitled to get a total compensation of ₹46,000/- (11500 x 4) under this head.

5.3. Loss of amenities - Though the appellant claimed an amount of ₹1,00,000/- under this head, the tribunal awarded only an amount of ₹15,000/-, which, according to the appellant, is on the lower side. Considering the injuries sustained by the appellant and the loss of enjoyment in life, I deem it appropriate to award a total compensation of ₹50,000/- towards loss of amenities.