In motor accident injury claims, permanent disability compensation based on Medical Board certificate excludes future prospects addition without proof of earning capacity loss; notional income reasonably fixed absent documents; specific heads enhanced for just compensation (38 words).

JUDGMENT

Since these two appeals arise from the Award in O.P.(MV)

901/2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, the appeals are heard together and are disposed of by this judgment. M.A.C.A.No.1998 of 2016 is filed by the insurer, challenging the compensation awarded, whereas M.A.C.A.No.2665 of 2017 is filed by the appellant/claimant, dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, The parties are hereinafter referred to as arrayed in the O.P.(MV).

2. The brief facts of the case is as follows: on

25.02.2013, at about 10.00 a.m., while the claimant was pillion riding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-11-AN-7882 through Mavoor – Kozhikode road, a jeep bearing registration No.KCT – 9272 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 compensation.

3. Though notice was served on the first respondent, the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle, he remained absent and was set ex parte before the tribunal. The second respondent – insurer filed a written statement, admitting the insurance policy, disputing the liability and the quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A14 and Ext.C1 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, found that the accident was due to negligence on the part of first respondent and the claimant was awarded a sum of ₹8,06,230/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization against the second respondent being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded as well as challenging the compensation awarded, the claimant as well as the insurer have come up with the above appeals.

4. Heard the learned standing counsel for the insurance company and the learned counsel for the claimant.

5. The learned counsel for the claimant as well as the insurer mainly challenged the quantum of compensation under the following heads: I. Notional income The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that though an amount of ₹1,000/- per day was claimed as the income of the claimant, the tribunal had taken the monthly income at ₹9,000/- only. The learned counsel also relied on Ext.A8 certificate to prove that she was working as a fashion designer at the time of accident. However, no documentary evidence has been produced before this court to substantiate the avocation of the claimant. Considering the afore facts and in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, I find it appropriate to re-fix the notional monthly income at ₹12,000/-.

II. Loss of earnings Since the notional monthly income has been re-fixed at ₹12,000/-, the total compensation payable under the loss of earnings for a period of five months would be ₹60,000/- (12,000 x 5). The tribunal had already awarded an amount of ₹45,000/- under the head loss of earnings. Thus there will be an additional amount of ₹15,000/- under the said head.

III. Pain and suffering:

The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that though an amount of ₹5,00,000/- was claimed towards the head pain and sufferings, only an amount of ₹20,000/- was awarded by the tribunal. Considering the age and nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, I find it appropriate to enhance the total compensation payable under the head at ₹50,000/-. Thus there will be an additional amount of ₹30,000/- under the afore head.

IV. L oss of amenities in life Though an amount of ₹5,00,000/- was claimed by the claimant towards the head loss of amenities in life, the tribunal had granted only ₹10,000/-. Considering the age and the loss of enjoyment in life, I find that