IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that compensation must reflect the severity of injuries and the claimant's profession, leading to an enhancement of the awarded amount.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner in OP(MV) No.149/2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, is the appellant in MACA No.2390 of 2012. The 1^st respondent in the O.P, is the appellant in MACA No.711 of 2012. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal).

2. According to the petitioner on 08.06.2010 at about 11.45 pm, while he was driving a pick up van through Kottayam – Wayanad road, a lorry bearing registration No.KL-13-R-77 driven by the 3^rd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit on his van. As a result of which, he sustained serious injuries.

3. The 1^st respondent is the owner and the 2^nd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. According to the petitioner, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.

4. The insurance company filed a written statement, admitting the accident as well as policy, but disputing the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.

5. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A6 and B1.

6. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.74,200/-.

7. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner and 1^st respondent preferred these appeals.

8. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following:

Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

9. Heard Sri.Sudheesh R, the learned Counsel appearing for the claimants, and Sri.A.A.Mohammed Usman, the learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company, Smt.M.Manju, the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent and Sri.T.P.Sajid T.P, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 7.

10. In the accident the petitioner sustained fracture right femur. From Ext.A6 OP Ticket/discharge summary, it is revealed that on 30.08.2011 bone grafting right femur was done from the Kozhikode District Co-operative Hospital.

11. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner was referred to a Medical Board constituted by the Superintendent, Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. As per the disability certificate received, the permanent physical disability of the petitioner was assessed as 3%. Since it was issued by a Medical Board the disability is assessed by the Medical Board and 3% is accepted.

12. According to the petitioner, he was a driver by profession getting a monthly income of Rs.10,000/-. However, the Tribunal fixed his notional income at Rs.4,000/- only. The learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that even the notional income of a coolie during the year 2010 as per the decision in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236], will come to Rs.7,500/-. Since the petitioner being a driver by profession, his notional income is to be fixed much above that of a coolie. It is true that as per the decision in Ramachandrappa (supra), the notional income of a coolie during the year 2010 will come to Rs.7,500/-. Considering the fact that the petitioner being a driver by profession, his notional income is fixed at Rs.10,000/-.

13. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 28 years. Therefore, 40% of the monthly income is to be added towards future prospects, as held in the decision in National Insurance Co.Ltd v Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] and the multiplier to be applied is 17, as held in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, [(2009) 6 SCC 121]. In the above circumstances, the loss of disability will come to Rs.85,680/-.

14. Towards loss of income, the tribunal has awarded only Rs.6,000/- @ Rs.4,000/- being the income for 1 1/2 months. In this case, the 2 petitioner has sustained fracture right femur and he was treated as inpatient for 26 days. Thereafter, bone grafting was done on 30.08.2011. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was treated for a total period of more than 1