The court ruled on the enhancement of compensation in motor accident claims, underscoring the importance of accurate income assessment and rightful compensation for losses incurred.

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.2187 of 2017 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimant was that on 26.08.2017, while he was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-08-BB-8190 from Narikkuni to Chembakunnu, a bus bearing Reg.No.KL-57-P-4968 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle, whereby he sustained serious injuries. He approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹15,00,000/-.

3. Respondents 1 and 2, who were the owner and driver of the offending vehicle respectively, filed a written statement, denying negligence on the part of the second respondent/driver. The third respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. PW1 to PW4 were examined and Exts.A1 to A31, C1 & X1 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of ₹11,58,500/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization, 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. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer.

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

5.1. Notional income - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant, who was 20 years old at the time of the accident, was a salesman and was earning ₹20,000/- per month, however, the tribunal has fixed the monthly income notionally only at ₹10,000/-. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant gave evidence as PW1 and deposed before the tribunal that he was earning ₹20,000/- per month. Even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236], for an accident that occurred in 2017, the monthly income of a coolie is fixed at ₹11,000/-.

Therefore, considering the facts, and also the evidence adduced by the appellant, I deem it appropriate to refix the monthly income of the appellant at ₹13,000/-.

5.2. Loss of earnings - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant could not go to work for almost eights months, however, the tribunal has not awarded compensation for loss of earnings. The appellant sustained a closed comminuted fracture shaft of right femur middle 1/3 of distal 1/3 junction, open knee joint right side, lacerated wound over medical aspect of right thigh with skin loss, subarachnoid hemorrhage and hemorrhagic contusion, grade V liver laceration left pneumothorax and right lung contusion and lacerated wound over scalp. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the age of the appellant, I am of the opinion that five months can be taken for awarding compensation for loss of earnings. Accordingly, the appellant will be entitled to get a total compensation of ₹65,000/- (13000 x 5)

towards loss of earnings.

5.3. Loss of earning power - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that though Ext.A13 disability certificate shows that the appellant sustained 25% disability; however, it was reduced by the tribunal to 20% while assessing compensation, which is unsustainable. On a p