Compensation for injuries must be just and reasonable, reflecting the severity of injuries, loss of earnings, and future earning potential.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.562 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thrissur 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 31.11.2005. According to the petitioner, on 31.11.2005 at about 04.30 p.m., while he was riding a motorcycle, an autorickshaw bearing Registration No.KL-8/AB-6572 driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motorcycle. As a result of the accident, the petitioner fell down and sustained serious injuries.

3. The 1^st respondent is the driver cum owner and 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. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. is Rs.3,44,500/-.

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 A18.

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.1,28,193/- rounded to Rs.1,28,200/- and directed the insurer to pay the same and permitted them to recover it from the 1^st respondent.

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.T.C.Sureshmenon, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Sri.Titus Mani, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd 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. As per the claim petition, the petitioner is an electrician by profession getting a monthly income of Rs.6,000 but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.3,000/-. The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable.

11. It is true that the petitioner could not prove his income, as claimed in the OP. Ext.A9 is the licence issued to the petitioner from the Omallur Grama Panchayat for repairing electrical instruments. Therefore, from Ext.A9, it is revealed that the petitioner is an electrician by profession. 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 2005 will come to Rs.5000/-. Therefore, the petitioner being an electrician by profession, his notional income is fixed at Rs.7,000/-, for the purpose of computing the loss of disability.

12. In the accident the petitioner sustained fracture both bones of right leg.

13. Exhibit A8 disability certificate issued by an orthopedic consultant assessed the permanent physical disability of the petitioner as 17.3%. The Tribunal, however, scaled down the percentage of disability of the petitioner to 8%, without assigning valid and cogent reasons. During the pendency of the appeal, he was again referred to a medical board constituted by the Superintendent, Government Medical College Hospital, Thrissur for assessing his permanent physical disability. The Superintendent, Government Medical College Hospital, Thrissur forwarded a certificate stating that his permanent physical disability assessed by the medical board is 7%. Considering the fact that the t