Determining compensation in motor accident claims requires appropriate assessment of notional income and loss of amenities, reinforcing that appellate courts should not interfere unless the lower court's decision is fundamentally flawed.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.1075 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. The respondents herein are the respondents before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimant is that on 12.02.2012 at about 10.50 p.m, while the claimant was travelling in a car bearing Reg. No.KL-27A 3789 driven by the first respondent from north to south and when the car reached the signal junction, the first respondent by neglecting the red signal entered into the junction at a high speed, hit on the left side of another car bearing Reg. No.KL-5 AB 2310 which was crossing the junction and thereafter the car hit on a median and another motorcycle. As a result of which, the claimant, a passenger in the car, sustained grievous injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹9,09,000/-

limited to ₹6,00,000/-.

3. The first respondent is the owner-cum driver of the offending vehicle. The first respondent filed a written statement admitting that he was the driver cum owner of the offending vehicle and the second respondent - insurance company also filed a written statement admitting the insurance policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A7, A8 series, A11 series, Ext.A9 & Ext.A10 and Ext.X1 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a compensation of ₹3,15,441/- under different heads with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the 2^nd 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 for the insurer.

5. The appellant has filed this appeal challenging compensation under the following heads:-

Notional income :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, though an amount of ₹30,000/- was claimed as the income of the injured, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹4,000/- as the monthly income of the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Ext.A10 pass book reveals that the claimant was a tailor by profession and had sufficient income and hence sought for enhancement of the income fixed. Considering Ext.A10 and the avocation of the injured who was aged 42 years at the time of accident, in order to award a just compensation, I find it appropriate to re-fix the income as ₹10,000/-

Loss of earnings:- Since the notional income is re-fixed as ₹10,000, I find that a total amount of ₹1,20,000/- (10,000 x 12) is payable under the afore head for a period of 12 months. Since the tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹48,000/- under the afore head, there will be an additional amount of ₹72,000/- under the head loss of earnings.

Loss of amenities :- Though an amount of ₹1,00,000/-

was claimed, the tribunal had awarded only an amount of ₹25,000/-. Considering the fact that she was a tailor by profession and was having 13% disability, I find it appropriate to award a total amount of ₹35,000/- under the head loss of amenities. Since the tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹25,000/- under the afore head, there will be an additional amount of ₹10,000/- under the head loss of amenities.

Compensation for continuing and permanent disability:- Since the notional income is re-fixed as ₹10,000, following the apex court judgments in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)] and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], the total compensation payable under the head permanent disability is calculated as thus: ₹2,18