The examination of the medical professional who issues a disability certificate is not a mandatory prerequisite for its acceptance in compensation claims; courts must assess functional disability holistically based on the evidence provided to ensure just and reasonable compensation.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P(MV) No.330 of

2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur, seeking enhancement of compensation. The respondent herein was the second respondent before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 12.02.2018, at about 8.30 a.m., while the claimant was pillion riding on a scooter bearing registration No.KL-42/L-462 along the Kunjithai – Paravur road, ridden by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner turned the vehicle in a high speed. As a result, the scooter skidded, causing the claimant to fall down and sustain serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹8,00,000/-.

3. Though notice was served on the first respondent, the rider 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 but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A12 series were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, found that the accident was due to negligence on the part of the first respondent and the claimant was awarded a sum of ₹4,45,500/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization against the second respondent – 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 mainly under the following heads:

I. Notional Income The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though an amount of ₹15,000/- was claimed as the notional monthly income of the appellant, who was a manual labourer, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹10,000/-. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236], the notional monthly income of a coolie for an accident in the year 2018 is fixed as ₹11,500/- and further sought enhancement of the income fixed. Accordingly, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra) and in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, I find it appropriate to re-fix the notional monthly income at ₹11,500/-.

II. Loss of earnings The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal has taken only three months for awarding compensation under the head loss of earnings. Following were the injuries sustained by the appellant:

i) Abrasion over left knee and right hand ii) Lacerated wound over left parietal occipital region iii) Bilateral fronto parietal subarachnoid haemorrhage Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, I find that a period of six months can be taken for awarding compensation under the said head. Since the notional monthly income has been re-fixed at ₹11,500/-, the total compensation payable under the head loss of earnings would be ₹69,000/- (11,500 x 6). Since the tribunal has awarded an amount of ₹30,000/-, there will be an additional amount of ₹39,000/- under the head loss of earnings.

III. L oss of amenities in life On a perusal of the award, it is seen that though an amount of ₹2,50,000/- was claimed, the tribunal had awarded only an amount of ₹48,000/- towards the head loss of amenities in life. Considering the age and loss of enjoyment in life, I find that the appellant will be entitled for an additional amount of ₹22,000/- under the afore head. Thus the total compensati