A claimant in a motor accident case can seek and receive enhanced compensation when initial awards are deemed insufficient, considering actual earnings and damages based on established legal precedents.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.151 of

2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Wayanad, Kalpetta, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondent herein was the third respondent before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 20.12.2013 at about 7.00 p.m., while the claimant was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-55G-8351 from Sulthan Bathery to Maithanikunnu, a jeep bearing registration No.KL-02G-2505 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motorcycle and as a result, the claimant sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹3,95,000/- which is limited to ₹3,00,000/-.

3. The first and second respondents, the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle respectively, filed a joint written statement, denying the negligence on the part of the first respondent in causing the accident. The third respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the insurance policy, disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A10 and C1 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, found that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the first respondent and the appellant/claimant was awarded a sum of ₹95,750/-, as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs against the third respondent being the 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 appearing for the respondent insurer.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant claims enhancement mainly under the following heads:

I. Notional Income The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though an amount of ₹23,800/- was claimed as the monthly income of the appellant, who was a driver by profession, the tribunal had taken only ₹5,000/- which is on the lower side. The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that no document has been produced to prove the income or the avocation of the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236] , the monthly income of a coolie is taken at ₹9,000/- for an accident in 2013 and sought enhancement of the income.

Accordingly, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra) and in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, I find it appropriate to re-fix the notional monthly income at ₹9,000/-.

II. Loss of earnings Since the notional monthly income is re-fixed as ₹9,000/-, the total compensation payable under the said head would be re-calculated for a period of four months as ₹36,000/- (9,000 x 4). The tribunal had awarded an amount of ₹20,000/- under the said head. Thus there will be an additional amount of ₹16,000/- under the head loss of earnings.

III. Bystander expenses The learned counsel for the appellant submits that though an amount of ₹5,000/- was claimed by the appellant towards the afore head, the tribunal had granted only ₹900/- for six days in-

patient treatment. Considering the year of accident as well as the period of hospitalisation, I am inclined to grant ₹250/- per day for six days in-patient treatment, totalling to ₹1,500/- (250 x 6) towards bystander expenses. Hence there will be an additional enhancement of ₹600/- (Rupees Six Hundred Only)

under the afore head.

IV. Extra nourishment The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was hospi