The court emphasized that compensation for injuries must reflect the severity of disabilities and loss of quality of life, allowing re-evaluation of various heads of compensation.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.1975 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 12.10.2016 at about

10.00 a.m., while the claimant was a passenger in a stage carriage bearing Reg.No.KL-27-F-7475, due to the sudden brake by the first respondent, driver, the claimant fell inside the bus and thus he sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming compensation of ₹32,92,000/-.

3. The first and second respondents being the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle respectively filed a joint written statement contending that there was no negligence on the part of the first respondent and that there was a valid policy at the time of accident. The third respondent, insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy, but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A16 and Ext.X1 documents were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹13,66,013.48/- rounded to ₹13,66,010/- with interest at 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 and the learned standing counsel 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 ₹15,000/- was claimed as the income of the injured who was a farmer, the tribunal has taken only an amount of ₹9,000/-. The learned counsel further submitted that even 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 2016 is fixed as ₹10,500/- and seeks enhancement of the income fixed. Considering the afore facts, in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), I find it appropriate to re-fix the income at ₹10,500/-

Loss of earnings :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that for awarding compensation under the head loss of earnings, the tribunal had taken only a period of three months. The claimant sustained injuries such as traumatic paraplegia and calcified ligamentum flavum with cord contusion at C6. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the fact that the appellant has suffered 70% disability, I find that a period of ten months can be taken for awarding compensation under the afore head. Accordingly, the compensation under the afore heads is re-calculated as: ₹1,05,000/-(10,500 × 10). The tribunal had already awarded an amount of ₹27,000/-. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹78,000/- towards loss of earnings.

Bystander expenses :- On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹9,500/- towards bystander expenses, taking an amount of ₹250/- per day for 38 days. Apart from that, in view of the fact that he has difficulty to sit by himself or do his daily pursuits, another sum of ₹50,000/- is also granted under the head bystander expenses totalling to an amount of ₹59,500/-. Since the accident was in the year 2016, I find it appropriate to take an amount of ₹500/- per day for 38 days and thus the total compensation payable under the afore head is ₹19,000/- (500x38). Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹9,500/- under the afore head, totalling to an amount of ₹69,000/- (19,000 + 50,000).

Extra nourishment :- The learned counsel for th