IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that compensation for motor vehicle accident victims must be just and reasonable, potentially exceeding the claimed amount based on actual income and disability.

JUDGMENT :

C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, J.

The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.770/2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, is the appellant herein. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal).

2. The petitioner filed the above O.P. under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 23.11.2012. According to the petitioner, on 23.11.2012 at about 7.15 p.m., while he was standing by the side of Kalady-Perumbavoor road, a car bearing reg.no.KL 40/E-6817 driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, knocked him down and as a result of the accident, the petitioner sustained serious injuries.

3. The 1^st respondent is the owner , the 2^nd respondent is the driver and 3^rd 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. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. is Rs.14,11,000/- limited to Rs.12,00,000/-.

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 A11, and C1. No evidence was adduced by the respondents.

6. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal found negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,60,489/- and directed the insurer to pay the same.

7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner preferred this appeal.

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. Tony Thomas Inchiparambil, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Smt. A.C. Devy, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid insurance policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is regarding the income of the petitioner as fixed by the Tribunal. According to him, the petitioner was working as Manager (Administration) of Federal Bank Limited, earning Rs.72591/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.5000/-. The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable.

11. One of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is regarding the notional income of the petitioner fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.5000/-. From Ext.A9 salary certificate of the petitioner, it is revealed that his salary during November 2012 was Rs.72591.89. However the Tribunal has fixed his notional income at Rs.5000/- for the purpose of assessing the loss of disability. The law is well settled that for the purpose of assessing the loss of disability in respect of a permanent employees getting monthly salary, average 50% of the income is to be taken as notional income for the purpose of assessing loss of disability. It was argued by the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent that though the accident was on 23.11.2012, the petitioner retired on 31.1.2013 and therefore according to him, there is no loss of actual salary and the notional income fixed by the Tribunal is correct.

12. In the decision in Dinesh Singh vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. 2014(9) SCC 241, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has fixed the notional income of an Engineer suffering from 60% disability drawing a monthly income of Rs.17200/- at Rs.12840/-. In the decision in Akhilesh Chandran vs. Sabu Varghese and Others [MANU/KE/3976/2024], a Single Bench of this Court has fixed the notional income of a victim employed in co-operative bank suffering from 40% d