JUDGMENT “The scars of road accidents can last a lifetime, but with support and care, victims can heal and rebuildâ€.

2. Dissatisfied with the awarded sum, this appeal is filed by the claimant, a 20-year-old, 100% permanently disabled youth. The award dated 19.08.2003 in OP(MV) No.1100 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, is under challenge. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

3. The case of the appellant/claimant is that on 21.05.2017, while he was travelling in a car bearing Reg.No.KL-8-AS- 9970 along the Kumali - Munnar public road driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, it turned upside down to a valley, whereby he sustained grievous injuries. He approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.1,95,00,000/-.

4. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte before the tribunal. The respondent insurer filed written statements, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A12 to A23 were marked on the side of the appellant/claimant and Ext.X1 was marked as court exhibit. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of Rs.64,71,050/- as compensation under different heads against the third respondent being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal.

5. I have heard Sri.A.R.Nimod, the learned counsel for the appellant, and Smt.Latha Susan Cherian, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant claimed enhancement of the monthly income notionally fixed by the tribunal, arguing that the appellant was a businessman engaged in sale of ‘parda’ and was earning Rs.50,000/- per month. It is seen that the tribunal has fixed the notional monthly income of the appellant at Rs.12,000/-. Exts.A21 and A22 reveal that the appellant was running a business in ‘parda’ and was holding a membership in the Kerala Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samithi. Therefore, considering Exts.A21 and A22, I find it just and proper to refix the notional monthly income of the appellant at Rs. 13,000/-.

7. The other main heads under which the appellant sought enhancement of compensation are; (1) Permanent disability, (2) Pain and suffering, (3) Loss of amenities, (4) Bystander expenses and (5) Loss of marriage prospects.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the notional monthly income of the appellant is refixed at Rs.13,000/-, compensation towards permanent disability has to be recalculated. As the appellant, who was only 20 years old at the time of the accident, sustained 100% disability, after adding 40% of the notional income towards future prospects, the amount would be arrived at Rs.18,200/- (13000 + 5200). Thus, following the judgments in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662(SC)] and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], the appellant will be entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.39,31,200/- (18200 x 12 x 18) towards permanent disability. Hence, there will be an additional amount of Rs. 3,02,400/- under the head of permanent disability.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant, relying on the judgment of the apex court in Jithendran v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Another [(2022) 15 SCC 620], argued that since the appellant is 100% disabled, which is not in dispute, a multiplier method has to be adopted for assessing compensation towards bystander expenses. It is further submit

---

Click Here to Read the rest of this document