JUDGMENT : SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J. This appeal has been filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No. 939 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the Tribunal. 2. According to the claimant, on 21.10.2014 at 7.15 a.m., while the claimant was riding a scooter bearing registration No. KL-37C 1699 through the Karukachal - Kottayam road, a motorcycle bearing registration No. KL- 33/D 5259 driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit the scooter, whereby the claimant sustained serious injuries. Heapproached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-. 3. Respondents 1 and 2, who were the rider and owner of the offending vehicle respectively, did not file any written statement before the tribunal. The third respondent/insurer filed a written statement, admitting the insurance policy and disputing the quantum of compensation claimed under different heads. Before the Tribunal, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A10 and XI were marked. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, found that the accident was due to the negligence on the part of the first respondent and the appellant herein was - as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs against the third respondent being the insurer; wherein the claimant was entitled only to 50% of the award amount due to contributory negligence. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as well as the finding of contributory negligence of 50%, the claimant/appellant has come up in appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned standing counsel for the respondent insurer. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant claimed enhancement mainly under the following heads: I. Notional Income: The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though an amount of Rs. 20,000/- was claimed, the Tribunal has taken only an amount of Rs. 6,000/- as the notional income for a fish vendor. The learned counsel further submitted that even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [ 2011 (13) SCC 236 ], the monthly income of an ordinary labourer for an accident in 2014 is fixed at Rs. 9,500/- and sought enhancement of the income. 6,000/- as the notional income for a fish vendor. The learned counsel further submitted that even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [ 2011 (13) SCC 236 ], the monthly income of an ordinary labourer for an accident in 2014 is fixed at Rs. 9,500/- and sought enhancement of the income. 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 Rs. 9,500/-. II. Loss of Earnings The tribunal has taken a period of eight months for awarding compensation towards loss of earnings. Since the monthly income has been refixed at Rs. 9,500/-, the compensation payable for loss of earnings for a period of eight months is re-calculated as Rs. 76,000/- (Rs. 9500 x 8). Since the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 48,000/-, there will be an additional amount of Rs. 28,000/- under head loss of earnings. III. Bystander Expenses: The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the accident was in the year 2014 and the Tribunal had awarded only an amount of Rs. 13,000/- towards bystander expenses taking an amount of Rs. 250/- per day for 52 days in-patient treatment. Considering the fact that the accident was in the year 2014, I deem it appropriate to take Rs. 300/- per day towards bystander’s expenses. Accordingly, he will be entitled to get a total compensation of Rs. 15,600/- (300 x 52) towards bystander expenses. Thus, there will be an additional compensation of Rs. 2,600/- under this head. IV. Loss of Amenities and Conveniences: The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal had awarded only an amount of Rs. 25,000/- under the head loss of amenities, which is on the lower side. Considering the injuries sustained by the appellant and the loss of enjoyment in life, I deem it appropriate to award a total amount of Rs. 40,000/-towards loss of amenities. Thus, the appellant will be entitled to get an additional amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of amenities. V. Pain and Suffering - Though the appellant claimed an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the head pain and sufferings the Tribunal had granted an amount of Rs. 50,000/-, which I find to be reasonable. VI. Loss/reduction in Earning Capacity -, Since the monthly income has been refixed as Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of amenities. V. Pain and Suffering - Though the appellant claimed an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the head pain and sufferings the Tribunal had granted an amount of Rs. 50,000/-, which I find to be reasonable. VI. Loss/reduction in Earning Capacity -, Since the monthly income has been refixed as Rs. 9,500/-, compensation towards permanent disability/reduction in earning capacity has to be recalculated. Accordingly, following the judgments of the apex court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [ 2017(4) KLT 662 (SC)] and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [ 2010(2) KLT 802 (SC)], the appellant will be entitled to get a total compensation of Rs. 1,78,752/- (9500 x 12 x 14 x 11.2/100) towards loss of earning capacity. Hence, after deducting the compensation of Rs. 1,12,896/- already awarded by the tribunal, there will be an additional amount of Rs. 65,856/- under this head. 6.The Tribunal has found 50% contributory negligence on the part of the claimant/rider of the motor cycle. Furthermore, there was A charge and B charge against the rider of the motorcycle as well as the rider of the scooter. The Tribunal, disregarding the evidence of PW2, who was an occurrence witness, found that there was negligence on the part of both the rider of the motorcycle as well as the rider of the scooter in causing the accident and found that the claimant herein also contributed 50% in causing the accident. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied on the evidence of PW1, who was the claimant herein, as well as the evidence of PW2, who was an occurrence witness. The learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal in paragraph 8 of the Award has disbelieved the evidence of PW2 for two reasons. Firstly, the Tribunal found that the testimony was not reliable since he had testified before the police that the accident spot was not on the left road margin. However, during the evidence before the Tribunal, he had stated that the accident was on the left road margin. Further, the Tribunal found another material contradiction on the version of PW2. According to PW2, the scene of occurrence is having 30meters straight vision towards east and 40m towards west, whereas the Tribunal found in Ext.A3 scene mahazar that the straight vision was up to 100 meters. Further, the Tribunal found another material contradiction on the version of PW2. According to PW2, the scene of occurrence is having 30meters straight vision towards east and 40m towards west, whereas the Tribunal found in Ext.A3 scene mahazar that the straight vision was up to 100 meters. I have gone through Ext.A3 scene mahazar and found that in the scene mahazar also it is stated that straight vision is only 30 meters towards east and 40 meters towards west. Nothing is mentioned regarding clear vision of 100 meters in the scene mahazar and the finding of the Tribunal on that point appears to be incorrect. Moreover, I could not find any noticeable contradiction in the statement given by PW1 before the police. The claimant herein mounted the box and gave evidence that there was no negligence on his part in causing the accident and the accident took place on his correct side. He also examined PW2, an independent witness who was an occurrence witness whereas the 3rd respondent/insurance company failed to adduce any evidence in support of the case. 7.The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that though it is stated in the chargesheet that A charge was drawn against the claimant herein, no chargesheet was filed against the claimant herein. Moreover, the 1st respondent who was the rider of the scooter, pleaded guilty before the Magistrate Court and in order to substantiate the same he relied on the judgment in C.C.NO.358/2015 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Changanassery. 8.This Court on 07.10.2025 had called for the entire case sheet in C.C.NO.358 of 2015 along with concerned documents and the entire casesheet has been produced before this Court. In that casesheet also, it is seen that the 1st respondent who was the rider of the scooter, involved in the accident has pleaded guilty. There is nothing on record to show that the chargesheet was drawn against the claimant herein. As per the scene mahazar, the connected documents and the evidence adduced by the appellant herein it is clear that the accident occurred on the left side of the road margin. Admittedly, the claimant herein was moving from west to east and the correct side of the claimant was the northern side where the accident occurred. As per the scene mahazar, the connected documents and the evidence adduced by the appellant herein it is clear that the accident occurred on the left side of the road margin. Admittedly, the claimant herein was moving from west to east and the correct side of the claimant was the northern side where the accident occurred. Hence, I find that the finding of 50% contributory negligence on the part of claimant herein is without any valid and satisfactory reasons and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, finding of 50% of contributory negligence on the part of the claimant is set aside. The insurance company is to be directed to pay the remaining 50% of the award amount awarded by the Tribunal as well as the enhanced compensation awarded by this Court. 9. Since the appeal is of the year 2020, I fix interest on the enhanced compensation @ 8% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization. Thus, the compensation awarded by the tribunal is enhanced as follows: 8 Loss/reduction in earning capacity 2,00,000 1,12,896 65,856 1,78,752 9 Loss of Amenities and Conveniences 1,00,000 25,000 15,000 40,000 10 Compensation for Permanent Disability 5,00,000 NIL Not modified NIL Total 12,11,000 (which is limited to) 10,00,000 2,89,436 rounded to 2,89,440 1,11,456 4,00,892 Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part as follows: 1. The finding of the tribunal as regards 50% contributory negligence is hereby set aside. 2. The insurance company shall pay to the claimant, the remaining 50% of the amount awarded by the tribunal together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till realization and proportionate costs. 3. The appellant/claimant is awarded an additional compensation of Rs. 1,11,456/- (Rupees One Lakh Eleven Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty Six Only) over and above the compensation awarded by the tribunal with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs. 4. The respondent insurer shall deposit the said amount together with interest and costs within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 5. The appellants shall furnish copies of the PAN Card, AADHAAR Card and bank details before the respondent insurer within a period of one month so as to enable the insurance company to make the deposit as ordered above. 5. The appellants shall furnish copies of the PAN Card, AADHAAR Card and bank details before the respondent insurer within a period of one month so as to enable the insurance company to make the deposit as ordered above. In case of failure to furnish details as above, it shall be open for the insurance company to deposit the said amount before the tribunal. Upon such deposit being made, the entire amount shall be disbursed to the appellant at the earliest in accordance with law.