The court established that compensation must reflect just and reasonable standards, adjusting the notional income and pain and suffering damages based on severity and context of injuries.

JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.1243 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, 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 20.06.2009 at about 12.00 p.m, while the claimant was standing by the road side, a tipper lorry bearing Reg.No.KL/40/A/9558 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the claimant, whereby he sustained serious injuries. The first and second respondents are the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle respectively, and 3^rd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle.

3. Respondents 1 and 2 remained absent in the proceedings before the Tribunal and they were set ex parte.

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

5. Before the tribunal, Exts. A1 to A11 and Ext.X1 and B1 were marked. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a compensation of ₹3,16,396/- under various heads with interest @8% per annum from the date of petition till realization against the 3^rd respondent insurer.

6. Dissatisfied with the amount awarded, the claimant has come up in appeal contending that the amount awarded is inadequate; that the notional income of ₹3,500/- 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.

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

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

9. It is not in dispute that on 02.06.2009, while the claimant was standing by road side, he met with an accident. Indisputably, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 2^nd respondent, who was the driver of the offending lorry bearing Reg.No.KL/40/A/9558. It is an admitted fact that the offending vehicle was validly insured with the 3^rd respondent.

10. Claimant’s case is that in the accident he sustained crush injury to the left heel with damage to soft tissues, degloving wound 10 X 8 cm involving medial aspect of ankle and foot having heel pad completely avulsed, ROM at ankle, communited fracture multiple tarsal bone with tarsometa tarsal joint dislocation and he has treated as inpatient for the period from 02.06.2009 til 30.07.2009. The Medical Board has issued Ext.X1 disability certificate to the effect that he sustained permanent disability of 20% due to the injury sustained in the accident and and he has also produced Ext.A8 certificate issued to the effect that he sustained 40% disability.

11. The learned Counsel for the claimant submitted that the monthly income of ₹3,500/- taken by the Tribunal is on the lower side. It was pointed out that the injured was a Diploma holder in Ayurvedic Nursing. Going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236] , the notional income of the claimant herein is notionally taken as ₹7,000/- per month for the purpose of awarding just compensation.

12. As per X1 disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, the permanent disability of the injured is 20%. His notional income is taken as ₹7,000/-. To the said income 40% future pr