The court determined that compensation for injuries must reflect true loss, enhancing the initial award from ₹198,000 to ₹269,068 due to insufficient assessment of notional income and damages.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV)

No.940 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal III, Palakkad, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the tribunal. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimant is that on

18.05.2013, at 10.20 a.m, while he was standing in front of Petrol pump at Sakunthala junction, Palakkad, the motorcycle bearing No.KL/51/B/752 ridden by the 2^nd respondent knocked down him causing injuries. The accident occurred owing to the negligence of 2^nd respondent, who was the rider of motorcycle bearing No.KL/51/B/752. The first respondent is the R.C owner and the 3^rd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Hence, he sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act .

3. The 3^rd respondent/insurance company filed written statement admitting the insurance policy, but challenging the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimant.

4. Before the tribunal, Exts. A1 to A20 and Ext.X1 were marked on the side of the claimant whereas no evidence is adduced by the respondents. The Tribunal, after analyzing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a compensation of ₹1,98,000/- under various heads with interest @9% per annum from the date of petition till realization against the 3^rd respondent insurer.

5. Dissatisfied with the amount awarded, the claimant has come up in appeal contending that the amount awarded is inadequate; that the notional income of ₹10,000/- 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 he seeks enhancement of compensation.

6. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurance company.

7. Now let us see whether the claimant is entitled to any enhanced compensation, and if so, what is the quantum.

8. It is not in dispute that on 18.05.2013, while the claimant was standing on the road side, he met with an accident on the road in front of Petrol pump at Sakunthala junction in Palakkad municipality. Indisputably, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 2^nd respondent, who was the driver of the offending motorcycle bearing No.KL/51/B/752. It is an admitted fact that the offending vehicle was validly insured with the 3^rd respondent.

9. The medical records would reveal that in the accident, the claimant sustained crush injuries, grade III open fracture, dislocation of the left ankle, pain and deformity of the left ankle and he was treated as inpatient for the period from 18.05.2013 till 29.05.2013.

10. According to the claimant, he is a skilled labourer, having worked as a MECH Tech employee, and he was earning 200 Oman Riyals per month at the time of accident. To substantiate his qualification and to prove that during the period of accident, he was employed abroad, he has produced Ext.A17 to A20 documents. Though he has not produced any documents to prove the salary which he was receiving abroad, there is no reason to suspect his version that he was employed abroad. Taking into account the qualification of the claimant and also taking into account the fact that he was employed abroad, his income is notionally taken as 12,000/- per month for assessing just compensation .

11. Having regard to the injuries sustained by him, loss of earning is calculated at the rate of ₹ 12,000/- for a period of 5 months. Accordingly, claim