Court modified the compensation awarded in a motorcycle accident case, setting the claimant's income higher and adjusting for various compensation heads based on evidence of injury and loss, while disallowing penal interest previously awarded.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P. (MV) No.1023 of

2015 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mavelikara, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondent herein was the 3^rd respondent before the tribunal. 2. According to the claimant, on 16.05.2014 at about 11.45 am while the claimant was riding a motorcycle bearing reg. No. KL-04-F-7805 and when reached near Haripad KSRTC bus stand, a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KL-15-9893 driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked the claimant. As a result of the accident, he had sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹16,50,000/-.

3. The 1^st respondent/driver remained ex parte before the tribunal. The 2^nd respondent/KSRTC filed a written statement contending that the application is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant himself who tried to abruptly cross the road. It was further contended that the bus was insured with the 3^rd respondent/insurance company. The 3^rd respondent/insurer filed a written statement admitting the policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A22 and Ext.X1 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹3,13,920/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum as compensation under various heads against the 3^rd respondent/insurer; and in default of payment as above, penal interest @ 12% per annum was also awarded. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent/insurer.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant claims enhancement mainly under the following heads:-

Notional income:- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though an amount of ₹20,000/- was claimed as the income of the appellant who was a business man, the tribunal had taken only ₹4,500/- as the income. It is further submitted that, going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [ 2011 (13) SCC 236 ], the income of an ordinary worker, for an accident in 2014, is fixed as ₹9,500/- and sought for enhancement of income. Considering the fact that he is a self employed businessman and in order to award just and reasonable compensation, I find it appropriate to refix the income at ₹10,000/-.

Loss of earnings:- The tribunal has taken only a period of six months for awarding compensation under the afore head. The claimant sustained injuries including head injury, fracture of skull, 3rd nerve palsy left, SDH and contusion eye. Considering the nature of injuries sustained, I am inclined to take a period of eight months for calculating loss of earnings. Since the monthly income has been re-fixed as ₹10,000/-, the compensation payable for loss of earnings for a period of eight months is re-calculated as ₹80,000/- (10,000 x 8). The tribunal has awarded an amount of ₹27,000/- under the afore head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹53,000/- towards loss of earnings.

Bystander expenses :- On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹4,500/- under the head bystander expenses. Considering the year of accident and period of hospitalization, I am inclined to grant a consolidated amount of ₹5,400/- under the said head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹900/- under the afore head.

Extra nourishment :- On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the tribunal has granted only an amoun