The court adjusted the notional income for compensation purposes, emphasizing judicial precedents to enhance total compensation due to injuries sustained in the accident.

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.607 of

2017 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Taliparamba, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondent herein was the second respondent before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimant was that on 13.08.2017, while he was travelling in an autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-59-C-7054, a pick-up van bearing Reg.No.KL-59-K-8706 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the autorickshaw, whereby he sustained serious injuries. He approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹10,00,000/-.

3. The first respondent, who was the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle, remained ex parte before the tribunal. The second respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Exts.A1 to A12 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 driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of ₹6,04,640/-, rounded off to ₹6,04,700/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the second 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 salesman in a toddy shop and was earning ₹15,000/- per month, however, the tribunal has fixed the monthly income notionally only at ₹8,000/-. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [ (2011) 13 SCC 236 ], for an accident that occurred in 2017, the monthly income of an ordinary worker is fixed at ₹11,000/- and seeks for an enhancement of the income fixed. Accordingly, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, I deem it appropriate to refix the monthly income of the appellant at ₹11,000/-.

5.2. Loss of earnings - Since the monthly income of the appellant is refixed at ₹11,000/-, compensation towards loss of earnings for a period of eight months has to be recalculated, which would come to ₹88,000/-. The tribunal already awarded ₹64,000/-. Thus, the appellant will be entitled to get an additional compensation of ₹24,000/-

towards loss of earnings.

5.3. Extra nourishment - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was hospitalized for a period of 15 days, however, the tribunal awarded only an amount of ₹3,000/- towards extra nourishment, which is on the lower side. Considering the fact that the accident was in the year 2017, I deem it appropriate to award a consolidated compensation of ₹6,000/- towards extra nourishment. Accordingly, the appellant will be entitled to get an additional compensation of ₹3,000/- under this head.

5.4. Loss of amenities - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the tribunal awarded only ₹10,000/- towards loss of amenities, which 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 ₹40,000/- towards loss of amenities. Thus, the appellant will be entitled to get an additional amount of ₹30,000/- towards loss of a