The court emphasized that compensation for injuries must be just and reasonable, particularly in cases involving permanent disability and loss of earnings, recalculating the total compensation to Rs.7,24,686.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.876/2007 on the file of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mavelikkara, 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 28.02.2007. According to the petitioner, on 28.02.2007 at about 9.30 a.m., while he was riding a motorcycle through the public road, a trailer bearing Reg.No.KL 7 V8937 driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit him down. As a result of the accident, the petitioner fell down and sustained serious injuries.

3. The 1^st respondent is the driver, the 2^nd respondent is the owner 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.4,81,000(limited 4,50,000)

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 testimonies of PW1 and PW2 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A17 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.2,78,557/- 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.P.J.Jeo Paul, the learned counsel who represented Sri.George Varghese, for the petitioner/appellant, and Sri.Lal K. Joseph 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 notional income of the petitioner as fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/-. At the time of the accident the petitioner was working in Assam rifles and the monthly income claimed was Rs.8,200/-. However the tribunal fixed his notional income at Rs.3,000/-. The reason given by the tribunal for fixing the notional income at Rs.3,000/- is that, the petitioner has not produce his salary certificate as on the date of the accident. Along with the memorandum of appeal, the petitioner has produced his salary particulars along with I.A.No.1968/2017, signed by Officer Commanding, Assam Rifles Transit camp Kolkatta, showing the salary particulars of the petitioner for the quarter ending 28.02.2007, which is marked as Ext.A18 for the purpose of reference. As per Ext.A18 his quarterly salary for the quarter ending 28.02.2007 was Rs.25,779/-. Therefore his monthly salary during the period of accident was Rs. 8,593/- (25,779/3).

11. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries:

“Diagnosis revealed fracture nasal bone, fracture naso- ethmoid bone, fracture right lateral wall of orbit, fracture maxilla Lefort II level, fracture midpalatine, fracture maxilliary antral walls, fracture floor of the nose, fracture mandible left para symphasis, total avulsion of nose. Bone deep wound running from left frontal area to the left corner of the mouth.”

12. As per Exhibit A17 disability certificate the petitioner suffered20% permanent physical disability. It was issued by PW2. The Tribunal, has accepted the permanent physical disability of the petitioner as such and hence, I do not find any grounds to disbelieve the same. Therefore, the permanent physical disability of the petitioner is accepted as 20%, as fixed by the Tribunal.

13. I