JUDGMENT :

The appellant was the petitioner in OP (MV) No.418/2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha. The respondents in the appeal were the respondents in the claim petition. The parties are, for the sake of convenience, referred to as per their status in the claim petition.

2. The petitioner had filed the claim petition under Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the injuries that he sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 19.4.2006.

3. The bare facts, for the disposal of the appeal, in the claim petition was that on 19.4.2006, while the petitioner was riding a motor cycle bearing registration No.KCE-5356 through the Keerampara – Oonjappara public road, a car bearing registration No.KRV-4115 (offending vehicle), driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner and at an excessive speed, hit the motor cycle riden by the petitioner. The petitioner sustained serious injuries. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the first respondent. The offending vehicle was insured with the second respondent. Hence, the respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the petitioner compensation, which he quantified at Rs.7,70,000/-.

4. The first respondent was absent and set ex parte.

5. The second respondent filed a written-statement refuting the allegations in the claim petition. However, the second respondent admitted that it had issued a valid insurance policy in favour of the offending vehicle. The second respondent denied the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident. It was also contended that the amount sought for in the claim petition was excessive and exorbitant. The second respondent prayed that the claim petition be dismissed.

6. Two witnesses were examined on the side of the petitioner and Exts A1 to A15 were marked through them. The respondents did not adduce any evidence.

7. The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings and materials on record, allowed the claim petition, in part, by permitting the petitioner to recover an amount of Rs.4,37,200/-with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of original petition till the date of realisation and proportionate costs. The second respondent was directed to deposit the compensation amount.

8. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner is in the appeal.

9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/second respondent – the Insurance Company.

10. The question that emanates for consideration in this appeal is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.

11. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680], has 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 standards. The conception of 'just compensation' has to be viewed through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and non-violation of the principle of equitability.

12. Ext A5 charge-sheet filed by the Police in crime No.256/2006 of the Kothamangalam Police Station substantiates that the accident was caused due to the negligence on the part of the first respondent, who was charged for committing the offences punishable under Secs 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. The second respondent had admitted that the offending vehicle was covered by a valid insurance policy. Exts A6 to A10 records substantiate that the petitioner was treated as an inpatient for 47 days in Chazhikattu Hospital, Thodupuzha. Ext A15 proceedings issued by the Welfare Fund Inspector proves that the petitioner was a toddy ta