Compensation for injuries must adequately reflect the severity of injuries and hardships endured, leading to an enhancement of the awarded amount.

JUDGMENT :

(JOBIN SEBASTIAN, J.)

The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No. 2451 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the tribunal on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 03.01.2016.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:-

On 03.01.2016, at 9.30 a.m., while the petitioner was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No. KL-43-E-6706 through Chalakudy - Malakkapara S.H. Public Road, and when reached at Mukkupuzha, a car bearing registration No.KL-7-AW-1819 driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle on which the petitioner was riding. Due to the impact of the hit, the petitioner was thrown onto the road causing severe injuries on him.

3. The owner and driver of the offending car were arrayed as 1^st and 2^nd respondents respectively, whereas, the insurer was arrayed as the 3^rd respondent. The 3^rd respondent contested the petition by filing a written statement mainly disputing the quantum of compensation claimed, despite admitting insurance coverage for the car involved in the accident. Petitioner's evidence consists of Exts. A1 to A10. No evidence, whatsoever was produced from the side of the respondents.

4. After trial, the tribunal came to a conclusion that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the car bearing registration No.KL-7-AW-1819 by the 2^nd respondent and being the insurer, the 3^rd respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The compensation was quantified at Rs. 6,38,130/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate costs. Seeking enhancement of the said compensation awarded, the petitioner has come up with this appeal.

5. I heard learned counsel appearing for both sides.

6. From the rival contentions raised, it is gatherable that the main dispute that revolves around this appeal is with respect to the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under various heads, particularly under the head of permanent disability is too meager and the tribunal awarded such a meager amount without considering the gravity and nature of the injuries sustained to the petitioner in the accident as well as the consequent hardships and inconveniences met by him. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent, the insurance company, would submit that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under various heads is just, fair, and reasonable and hence, warrants no interference.

7. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that for the purpose of determining compensation under the head of permanent disability, the tribunal assessed the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs. 11,000/-. Though in the petition, it was claimed that the petitioner was a tile worker at the time of the accident and earning a daily income of Rs. 1,000/-, no evidence whatsoever has been produced to substantiate his contentions regarding his occupation and income. Anyhow, considering the year of the accident and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [ (2011) 13 SCC 236 ], the tribunal assessed the income of the petitioner at Rs. 11,000/-. I am of the view that the notional income assessed by the tribunal is justifiable and no interference is warranted in that regard. Moreover, relying on the disability certificate, which is marked in evidence as Ext.X1, the tribunal entered into a finding that the petitioner has suffered a disability of 7% due to the injuries sustained in the accident and awarded an amount of Rs. 1,57,080/- under the head of permanent disability. I find no scope for any interference in the compensation awarded by the tribunal under the head of permanent disability as the same is just