In motor accident injury claims, compensation must be calculated by applying appropriate multipliers, including future prospects in disability assessments, and ensuring that bystander and medical maintenance expenses are adjusted to reflect real costs and the victim's long-term needs to constitute just compensation.

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.1406 of 2014 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondent herein was the third respondent before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimant was that on 16.08.2014, while he was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-40/C-4454, a tipper lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-41/C-4719 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 ₹12,00,000/-.

3. Respondents 1 and 2, who were the owner and driver of the offending vehicle respectively, remained ex parte before the tribunal. 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. Exts.A1 to A9 & B1 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 ₹10,38,234/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% 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 was a truss worker and was earning ₹10,000/- per month, however, the tribunal has fixed the monthly income notionally only at ₹6,000/-. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that 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 2014, the monthly income of a coolie is fixed at ₹9,500/- and seeks for an enhancement of the income fixed. Accordingly, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), I deem it appropriate to refix the monthly income of the appellant at ₹9,500/-.

5.2. Loss of earnings - Since the monthly income of the appellant is refixed at ₹9,500/-, compensation towards loss of earnings for a period of 10 months has to be recalculated, which would come to ₹95,000/-. Thus, after deducting ₹60,000/- already awarded by the tribunal, the appellant will be entitled to get an additional compensation of ₹35,000/- towards loss of earnings.

5.3. Bystander expenses - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the tribunal has taken only an amount of ₹250/- per day for 52 days in-patient treatment towards bystander’s expenses, which is on the lower side. Considering the fact that the accident was in the year 2014, I deem it appropriate to take ₹350/- per day towards bystander’s expenses. Accordingly, he will be entitled to get a total compensation of ₹18,200/- (350 x 52) towards bystander expenses. Thus, after deducting ₹13,000/- already awarded by the tribunal, there will be an additional compensation of ₹5,200/- under this head.

5.4. Extra nourishment - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was hospitalized for a period of 52 days, however, the tribunal awarded only an amount of ₹2,500/- towards extra nourishment, which is on the lower side. Considering the fact that the accident was in the year 2014, I deem it appropriate to award a consolidated compensation of ₹15,000/- tow