IMPORTANT POINT
Compensation for injuries must be just and reasonable, reflecting the severity of injuries and ongoing medical needs, with adjustments for bystander expenses and future medical costs.

JUDGMENT :

(C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, J.)

Dated this the 3^rd day of March, 2025 The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.832/2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vatakara, 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 Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 09.07.2007. According to the petitioner, on 09.07.2007 at about 6.45 a.m., while he was standing on the road margin, a lorry bearing Reg.No. KL 59-6545 driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner locked 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.16,21,000/-

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 documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A13 and B1.

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. 10,89,300/- 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. Chandrasekharan, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Sri.P. Jacob Mathew, 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 rubber tapper and driver, earning Rs.9,500/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.4500./-. The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable.

As per the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236], the notional income of a coolie, in the year 2007 will come to Rs.6000/-. Since the petitioner could not prove his job or income as claimed in the OP, in the light of a dictum laid down in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa (supra) , his notional income is liable to be fixed as that of a coolie, at Rs.6000/-.

11. In the accident the petitioner sustained spinal cord injury with posterior dislocation and quadriplegia and lacerated wound on the scalp.

12. As per Exhibit A11 disability certificate the petitioner suffered 100% permanent physical disability. It was issued by the medical board. The Tribunal, has accepted the permanent physical disability of the petitioner as such and hence, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the same. Therefore, the permanent physical disability of the petitioner is accepted as 100%, as fixed by the Tribunal.

13. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 43 years. Therefore, 25% 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 14, 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.12,60,000/-

14. Tow