The court emphasized proper assessment and re-evaluation of compensation claims must align with established medical evidence and legal precedents, particularly for disability ratings.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P. (MV) No.494 of

2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein was the 3^rd respondent before the tribunal. 2. According to the claimant, on 10.01.2017 at about 11.30 am, while the claimant was riding a scooter bearing Registration No-45-E-3116, a car bearing registration No.KL-09-X-4120 driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit on the scooter. As a result of the accident, she had sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹10,00,000/-.

3. The first respondent/owner and second respondent/driver of the offending vehicle remained ex parte before the tribunal. The 3^rd respondent/insurer filed a written statement admitting the policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, PWs 1 and 2 were examined. Exts.A1 to A14 and Exts.X1 to X3 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹3,77,235/- with interest @ 8% per annum as compensation under various heads against the 3^rd respondent/insurer. 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 the tribunal had taken ₹10,000/- as the income of the injured, who was a sales woman in a textile showroom. 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 2017, is fixed as ₹11,000/- and sought for enhancement of income. Following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), in order to award just and reasonable compensation, I find it appropriate to refix the income at ₹11,000/-.

Loss of earnings:- The tribunal has taken only a period of four months for awarding compensation under the afore head. The claimant sustained injuries including depressed fracture lateral condyle of right knee and multiple laceration wound of neck and chest wall. Considering the nature of injuries sustained, I am inclined to take a period of five months for calculating loss of earnings. Since the monthly income has been re-fixed as ₹11,000/-, the compensation payable for loss of earnings for a period of five months is re-calculated as ₹55,000/- (11,000x5). Since the tribunal has awarded an amount of ₹40,000/- under the afore head, there will be an additional amount of ₹15,000/- towards loss of earnings.

Bystander expenses :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was treated as an inpatient for 9 days. However, the tribunal had taken only 4 days for awarding compensation under the head bystander expenses. On a perusal of the award, particularly paragraph 14, it is seen that the tribunal had, in fact, taken the period of inpatient treatment as 9 days. However, while computing the compensation, the tribunal appears to have mistakenly taken the period of inpatient treatment as 4 days. Considering that the accident is of the year 2017, I find it appropriate to fix ₹500/- per day towards bystander expenses. Therefore, the total amount payable under the said head would come to ₹4,500/- (500x9). The tribunal has already awarded an amount of ₹1,200/- under the said head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹3,300/- under the hea