IMPORTANT POINT
The injured before the Apex Court were having higher percentage of functional disability, on account of permanent disability, which had resulted in higher extent of loss of future earning capacity, and it was in such circumstances that the Apex Court granted them disability compensation by adding future prospects.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.

1. The appellant is the claimant in O.P. (MV) No. 1152 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident, which occurred on 10.04.2007, while he was travelling as pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing registration No. KL-5/G-8748. At the place of accident, the motorcycle was hit by a car bearing registration No. KL-05/T-5703 owned and driven by the 1st respondent, and insured with the 2nd respondent insurer. In the accident, he sustained injuries. Alleging that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car by the 1st respondent driver, claim petition was filed before the Tribunal, claiming a total compensation of Rs. 12,94,700/- under various heads, which was limited to Rs. 10,00,000/- for the purpose of payment of Court Fee.

2. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent owner cum driver of the car remained absent and he was set ex-parte.

3. The 2nd respondent insurer filed written statement admitting policy coverage of the car involved in the accident; however, denying negligence alleged against the 1st respondent driver. The insurer contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider. The insurer disputed the age, occupation, monthly income, etc. stated in the claim petition and it was contended that the compensation claimed is highly excessive.

4. Before the Tribunal, the claim petition was tried along with the connected matter. Exts.A1 to A15 were marked on the side of the claimants and the appellant herein was examined as PW1. Exts.B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the respondents.

5. After considering the pleadings and materials on record, the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by the 1st respondent driver. Since insurance coverage of the said vehicle was not in dispute, the 2nd respondent insurer was held liable to indemnify the insured. Under various heads, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 2,66,026/- together with interest at the rate 7.5% per annum from the date of petition, i.e. from 06.08.2007, till date of payment, with proportionate cost of Rs. 4,300/- and directed the insurer to satisfy the award.

6. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant/claimant is before this Court in this appeal.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and also the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent insurer.

8. The issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the appellant is entitled for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads.

9. In State of Haryana vs. Jasbir Kaur, (2003) 7 SCC 484 the Apex Court held that the Tribunal under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which is to be in the real sense 'damages' which in turn appears to it to be just and reasonable. It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. But at the same time it has be to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the compensation must be 'just' and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit; but the same should not be a pittance.

10. In National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that, Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with the concept of just compensation and the same has to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal