The court held that notional income must be adjusted incrementally to account for economic changes, ensuring compensation is just and reasonable in personal injury claims.

JUDGMENT

Claimant in OP(MV) No.877/2016 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palakkad [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’] has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2. Claimant filed the O.P seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act , stating that on 26.07.2014 at about 9.45 a.m, while she was riding a scooter through Olavacode - Palakkad road, a car bearing registration No.KL-14-F-3875 knocked down her, causing serious injuries to her. Accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of R1, who was the driver cum owner of the car bearing registration No.KL-14-F-3875. R2 is the insurer of the said car.

3. Before the Tribunal, R1 remained absent and he was set ex parte.

4. R2 filed written statement admitting policy, but denying the liability. It was also contended that there was no negligence on the part of R1 and the accident occurred due to the negligence on the side of the claimant. Further, it was contended that the amount of compensation claimed is exorbitant.

5. By the impugned award, the Tribunal awarded a sum of ₹1,54,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 9%

per annum.

6. Dissatisfied with the quantum of amount awarded, the claimant has come up in appeal contending that the amount awarded is inadequate;that the notional income of ₹5,000/- per month taken for assessing the compensation is very low; that the amount awarded is not a just and reasonable compensation as mandated by law and therefore, she seeks enhancement of the compensation.

7. Heard both sides. Records perused.

8. It is not in dispute that on 26.07.2014, while the claimant was riding a scooter, she met with an accident. It is in evidence that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of R1, who was the driver cum owner of the offending car bearing registration No.KL-14-F-3875. It is an admitted fact that the offending vehicle was validly insured with R2.

9. Now let us see whether the appellant/claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation.

10. The learned counsel for the claimant contended that going by the decision of the Apex Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011) 13 SCC 236] , the Tribunal ought to have taken at least ₹9,500/- per month as notional income.

11. In Ramachandrappa [cited supra], the Hon’ble Supreme Court fixed the notional income of a coolie worker in the year 2004 as ₹4,500/- per month. In Syed Sadiq and Others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd. [(2014) 2 SCC 735] the Hon’ble Supreme Court fixed the notional income of a vegetable vendor in the year 2006 at the rate of ₹6,500/-

per month.

12. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] the Hon’ble Supreme Court has recognized the principle that there would be incremental enhancement in the case of even self-employed individuals in the unorganized sector and with respect to an unspecified job of a coolie considering the increase in cost of living and economic advancement over the years, it can be safely assumed that even a coolie worker would be eligible for incremental addition of ₹500/- in every subsequent year.

13. Bearing in mind the above yardsticks, this Court is of the view that the notional income of the claimant herein can be fixed at ₹9,500/- per month for the purpose of awarding just compensation in the claim petition filed by her.

14. The Tribunal has awarded ₹20,000/- under the head loss of earnings for a period of four months at the rate of ₹5,000/- per month. This Court has taken her notional income as ₹9,500/- per month. Accordingly, an amount of ₹