Future prospects must be considered when assessing compensation for permanent disability in motor accident claims, ensuring just and adequate compensation.

JUDGMENT :

Appellant who is the claimant in OP(MV) No.1292/2012 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kottayam [hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’] has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2. On 30.10.2011 while the appellant was riding a scooter through the public road, another motor cycle bearing registration No.KL-36/5941 ridden by the 1st respondent hit on the motor cycle ridden by the appellant and in the said accident, the appellant sustained grievous injuries. Accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of R1, who was the rider-cum-registered owner of the offending motor cycle. R2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Appellant approached the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.37,32,633/-. By the impugned award, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.11,82,000/-as compensation with interest at 8.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the sum awarded, appellant has come in appeal seeking enhanced compensation.

3. Notice served to respondents. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and gone through the materials placed on record.

4. There is no dispute over the fact that on 30.10.2011 appellant met with a motor vehicle accident while he was riding the scooter bearing registration No.KL-5/Q-6233 through Thalayolaparambu-Vaikom road. It is also not in dispute that the motor cycle bearing registration No.KL-36/5941 owned and ridden by R1 was the offending vehicle. Admittedly, R2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meager and inadequate; that while awarding compensation, the Tribunal failed to take note of the fact that the appellant, who was then aged only 21 years sustained severe head injuries and had to undergo prolonged treatment and he sustained permanent whole body disability; that while awarding compensation under the head loss of earning capacity, the Tribunal has not considered the loss of future prospects. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the Tribunal has not awarded a just compensation; that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under all heads are on lower side.

6. Let us see whether the appellant is entitled to any enhanced compensation and if so, what is the quantum.

7. Appellant’s case is that he is a Diploma holder in Hotel Management; that he was a trainee in a hotel at Kollam and was earning Rs.6,000/-per month apart from the tip, free food and accommodation. He has produced Ext.A19 to prove that he is a Diploma holder in Hotel Management.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that going by the decision of the Apex Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011) 13 SCC 236], the Tribunal ought to have taken at least Rs.8,000/-per month as notional income instead of Rs.6,000/-.

9. In Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011) 13 SCC 236], the Hon’ble Supreme Court fixed the notional income of a coolie worker in the year 2004 as Rs.4,500/-per month. In Syed Sadiq and Others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2014) 2 SCC 735] the Hon’ble Supreme Court fixed the notion