IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that compensation must reflect the claimant's actual earning capacity and the impact of disability, rejecting rigid formulas for calculation.

JUDGMENT :

EASWARAN S., J.

This appeal arises out of the award passed by the Tribunal in O.P. (MV) No. 1186/2016 on the files of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. In MACA No. 14 of 2021 the claimant has come up in appeal dissatisfied the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal whereas MACA No. 1924 of 2021 is preferred by the driver of the vehicle questioning the grant of compensation. It is pertinent to mention that in the present case there is no insurance coverage for the offending vehicle and therefore the owner and driver of the offending vehicle have been mulcted with the liability to pay the entire compensation.

2. The facts in brief of the disposed case are as follows.

The appellant/claimant on 11.11.2015, while riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No. KL-46-H-2016 through Thrissur – Chammannur public road and when he reached near Peramangalam Village office at about 8.30 am a Maruthi Baleno Car bearing Reg.No. KL-08-AK-8309 driven by the appellant in MACA No. 1924 of 2021 came in a rash and negligent manner in terrific speeds jumped over the divider of the road ran through the wrong side and collided with the Car bearing Reg. No. KL-8-AT-8388 which was proceeding in front of the claimant’s motorcycle. Due to the impact of the collision both the cars were turned around and hit the claimant’s motorcycle. The Claimant was thus thrown on to the road and sustained severe injuries. The claimant contended that he was a tuition teacher drawing a monthly income of Rs.20,000/-. In support of his contention, Exts. A1 to A29 documents were produced. The claimant also produced Ext.A21 Disability Certificate. The claimant was examined as PW1 and PW2 was examined to prove the contents of Ext.A21. The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence found that the claimant was not successful in proving the income as claimed in the claim petition and accordingly, proceeded to fix the income notionally at Rs.10,000/- and fixed the disability as such under Ext.A21 and granted the following compensation.

3. As stated above, since the vehicle in question did not have an insurance, the owner of the vehicle and the appellant in MACA No. 1924 of 2021 was directed to pay the entire amount of compensation.

4. Heard, Sri. Nimod A.R., learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ claimant in MACA No.14/2021 and Smt K.A.Sanjeetha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/1^st respondent in MACA No. 1924 of 2021.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant/appellant contended that the Tribunal erred egregiously in fixing the notional income of claimant at Rs.10,000/-. In the nature of disability suffered by the claimant, it was not possible for the Tribunal to have fixed the percentage of disability at 55%. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar [(2022) 13 SCC 790]. The learned counsel further placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sunita Tokas & Anr. v. New India Insurance Company Ltd. and Another [ AIR 2019 SC 3921 ] to contend for the preposition that the notional income of a student and an outstanding sports person has to be fixed appropriately. He further pointed out that the Tribunal though accepted Exts