Court re-evaluated compensation, emphasizing the need for adequate enhancement based on precedents, adjusting notional income to ₹11,000 and improving amounts for various categories related to injury compensation.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P. (MV) No.791 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 17.06.2017 at about 09.30 am, while the claimant was riding a motorcycle bearing reg. No. KL-17/A-7972, another motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-7/BF- 8617 ridden by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the claimant. As a result of the accident, he had sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹9,97,000/- limited to ₹8,00,000.

3. The first respondent/rider and second respondent/owner 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 and denying liability. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A8 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹4,21,719/- rounded off to ₹4,21,800/- with interest @7% 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 though an amount of ₹20,000/- was claimed, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹9,000/- as the income of the injured, who was a businessman by profession. 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 a Coolie, 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 two months for awarding compensation under the afore head. The claimant sustained the following injuries: (1)comminuted mildly displaced fracture tibial spine, (2)avulsion fracture of lateral aspect of tibial plateau, (3)moderate joint effusion with haemerthrosis, (4)avulsion of anterior cruciate ligament from tibial and (5)partial tear of posterior cruciate ligament. Considering the nature of injuries sustained as well as the age of the appellant, 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 ₹18,000/- under the afore head, there will be an additional amount of ₹37,000/- towards loss of earnings.

Bystander expenses/attendant charges:- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal had granted only an amount of ₹600/- under the head bystander expenses, taking an amount of ₹300/- per day for 2 days in patient treatment.

Considering the year of the accident as well as the period of hospitalisation, I am inclined to award ₹500/- per day for 2 days, which would come to ₹1,000/-. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹400/- under the head bystander expenses.

Pain and sufferings :- On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹40,000/- under the head pain and sufferings. Considering the injuries sustained and