Babu Mathew P. Joseph, J.

1. The appellant, who as a pedestrian, sustained serious injuries in a motor accident that occurred on 05.05.2002 involving a car. He preferred a petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, claiming compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The learned Tribunal, after considering the matter, found that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the car as well as the contributory negligence of the appellant and arrived at a total compensation of 1,21,270/- (Rupees one lakh twenty one thousand two hundred and seventy only). On the basis of the contributed negligence attributed on the part of the appellant, the Tribunal deducted 50% of the compensation so arrived at and directed the third respondent Insurance Company to deposit the balance 50% for paying to the appellant. Challenging the finding of the Tribunal that there was contributory negligence on the part of the appellant and dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation arrived at by the Tribunal, the appellant has preferred this appeal. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent Insurance Company. The respondents 1 and 2 remain deleted from the party array.

2. The appellant lost four upper middle incisors and sustained fracture of four middle lower incisors in the accident. There was bleeding from the nose. There was a small lacerated wound over the medial end of left eyebrow. Abrasions on the left thigh, leg, foot, forehead, right side of lower chest and left knee were there. Flexion of the hip was painful and difficult for him after the accident. His mandible was fractured. Head of the left fibula was fractured. Inferior and superior pubic rami on the left side were also fractured. He was taken to the Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam, after the accident. He was treated there as an inpatient from 05.05.2002 to 14.06.2002. He was again admitted to that Hospital on 16.07.2002 and treated as an inpatient till 09.08.2002. This time he was admitted to the Hospital for arthroscopy of his left knee. Arthroscopy assisted anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction was done. Bone graft was also done under spinal anaesthesia on 19.07.2002.

3. The petitioner claimed that he was working with a building contractor earning a daily wage of 160/-. For want of sufficient proof, the learned Tribunal did not accept that case and reckoned his monthly income during the relevant period as Rs. 2,000/-. This, we find, is insufficient. The accident in this case occurred on 05.05.2002. Going by the ground realities supported by rulings rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court, we fix the monthly income of the appellant, during the relevant period, at Rs. 3,000/- for the purpose of awarding compensation under the head of loss of earnings. On considering the serious nature of injuries as well as long period of inpatient as well as outpatient treatments, we are of the view that the appellant could not have earned any income after the accident for a period, at least, of six months. Therefore, he is entitled to Rs. 18,000/- in the place of Rs. 8,000/- fixed by the Tribunal. The appellant was aged only 24 at the time of accident. Therefore, a projected amount of Rs. 4,500/- can be reckoned as his monthly income taking into account the better future prospects in relation to his income, for the purpose of awarding compensation under the head of permanent disability. The Medical Board of the General Hospital, Ernakulam, has examined the appellant and certified that he has a permanent whole body disability of 15%. The Orthopaedic Surgeon, who was a member of the said Medical Board, was examined as PW. 2. Even then, without assigning any acceptable reason, the learned Tribunal has taken into account only 8% permanent disability for the purpose of awarding compensation. The finding so entered by the learned Tribunal has no legs to s