The court re-evaluated compensation awarded to a claimant in a motor accident case, highlighting that serious injuries necessitate significant adjustments in compensation under various heads.

JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.1329 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta, claiming enhancement of compensation awarded by the tribunal. The respondent herein was the 3^rd respondent before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimant is that on 14.03.2004 at about 4.30 pm, while he was travelling in an autorickshaw bearing Reg.KL-03-D-4463 and when the autorickshaw overturned and, he sustained serious injuries in the accident. The respondents 1 to 3 are the owner, driver and the insurer of the offending vehicle respectively. According to the claimant, accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 2^nd respondent, who was the driver of the autorickshaw bearing Reg.KL-03-D-4463. Hence, the claimant approached the tribunal seeking a compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act .

3. The respondent/insurance company alone contested the matter and filed written statement admitting the policy but it was contended that the 2^nd respondent in the OP had no valid license to drive the vehicle and therefore there was violation of policy condition. It was also contended that the amount claimed under various heads are excessive.

4. Before the tribunal, Exts. A1 to A9 were marked.

The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a compensation of ₹1,21,888/- under different heads with interest @9% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, appellant/ claimant has preferred this appeal seeking enhanced compensation.

5. Heard the learned Counsel for the claimant and the learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent/ insurer.

6. There is no dispute over the fact that the claimant met with a motor vehicle accident on 14.03.2004, while he was travelling in an autorickshaw.

7. Ext.A2 wound certificate would reveal that the claimant sustained lacerated wound in left knee, injury left patella, multiple injures, abrasion etc., and he had undergone inpatient treatment at the General Hospital, Pathanamthitta for 23 days. Thus the medical records would reveal that the claimant sustained grievous injuries in the accident.

8. According to the claimant, who was then aged 42, he was a coolie worker earning ₹5,000/- per month. The Tribunal has taken ₹4,000/- per month as his notional income. There is no reason to disbelieve the case of the claimant that he was earning ₹5,000/- per month. Accordingly, his notional income is taken as ₹5,000/- per month for the purpose of assessing compensation.

9. Under the head loss of earning, the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of ₹8,000/- for a period of two months. It is in evidence that he had undergone inpatient treatment for 23 days. Therefore, he may not be able to go for his avocation at least for a period of 3 months. Hence, under the head loss of earning, an amount of ₹15,000/- (₹5,000x3) is granted instead of ₹8,000/-.

10. Under the head compensation for pain and suffering, the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of ₹20,000/-. As mentioned above, the claimant, who sustained serious injuries on his patella and multiple injuries, had undergone treatment as inpatient for 23 days. Accordingly, an amount of ₹20,000/- is awarded by the Tribunal under the head pain and suffering is found to be meager and therefore, a sum of ₹40,000/- is awarded under the said head.

11. Under the head transport to hospital, the Tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹1,000/-, which is meager. Taking into account the nature of injuries sustained, special conveyance might have required by him for attending the hospital. Accordingly, a sum of ₹2,000/- is awarded instead of ₹1,000/-.

12. Under the head extra nourishment, the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of ₹1,000/-, which is found to be meager. Accordingly, the same is enhanc