JUDGMENT :

The appellant is the petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.475/2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Taliparamba. The respondent in the appeal was the 3rd respondent 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 Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short “Act”) claiming compensation on account of the injuries that he sustained in a motor accident on 18.11.2015.

3. The case of the petitioner in, brief, for the determination of the appeal in the claim petition is that on 18.11.2015 while he was travelling in a car bearing Reg. No. KL 59 H 2382 from Kozhikode to Taliparamba, a car bearing Reg. No. KL 59L 1517 (offending vehicle) driven by the 1st respondent, in a rash and negligent manner, hit the car in which the petitioner was travelling. The petitioner sustained serious injuries. He was hospitalised as an inpatient for 54 days and underwent treatment in different spells for the period from 18.11.2015 to 26.10.2016. The petitioner was doing business in real estate and he was getting an income of Rs.20,000/-per month. The petitioner had to spent a considerable amount for his medical treatment. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.

4. The respondents 1 and 2 were set ex parte.

5. The 3rd respondent – Insurance Company – filed a written statement, inter alia, refuting the allegations in the claim petition. However, the 3rd respondent admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with the said respondent. The 3rd respondent denied the factum of accident. It was contended that the amount claimed by the petitioner was excessive and exorbitant. Hence, the 3rd respondent prayed that the claim petition be dismissed.

6. The petitioner was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A11 were marked through him. Ext.X1 disability certificate issued by the Government Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Taliparamba was also marked in evidence.

7. The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings and materials on record, by the impugned award allowed the claim petition, in part, by directing the 3rd respondent to pay the petitioner compensation of Rs.11,18,100/-with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation and proportionate costs.

8. The comparative table showing the compensation that was claimed by the petitioner and that was awarded by the Tribunal is as follows:-

9. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, under the various heads mentioned above, the petitioner is in appeal.

10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company.

11. The point that emerges for consideration in this appeal is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

12. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company