The court recalibrated compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, emphasizing just compensation based on notional income and permanent disability, while setting aside unjust recovery orders against the vehicle owner.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.1267/2013 on the file of the Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, is the appellant in MACA No.3025/2015 and the 2^nd respondent in the OP is the appellant in MACA No.559/2016 (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 13.05.2012. According to the petitioner, on 13.05.2012 at about 11 p.m., while he was riding a motorcycle, along the M.C. road, a tempo traveller bearing reg.no.KL-5/AD 1539 driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the motorcycle and as a result of which, he 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.21,81,000/-.

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 A14, X1, B1 and B2.

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.6,12,706/- rounded to Rs.6,13,000/- and directed the insurer to pay the same and then to recover it from the 2^nd respondent.

7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner and against the order for pay and recovery, the 2^nd respondent preferred these appeals.

8. Now the points that arise for consideration are the following:

1) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

2) Whether the order for pay and recovery sustainable?

9. Heard Sri.Philip T.Varghese, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, Sri. P.Kuruvilla Jacob, the learned Counsel for the 2^nd respondent, and Smt.Latha Susan Cherian, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

10. The Point s : 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 electrician, earning Rs.10000/- 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. It is true that the petitioner could not prove his income, as claimed in the OP. 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 2012 will come to Rs.8500/-. Therefore, the petitioner being an electrician by profession, his notional income is fixed at Rs.8500/-, for the purpose of computing the loss of disability.

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

(1). comminuted segmental fracture fibula right. (2). comminuted fracture tibia right, (3), fracture (type II open) 3^rd metacarpal right, (4), comminuted trapezoid fracture right hand. (5). open injury medial aspect right knee, (6), fracture inferior pole of patelia, (7). bleeding wound over right knee, and (8). open wound over right knee.

13. Ext.X1 disability certificate shows that the petitioner suffered 18.04% permanent physical disability. It was issued by the medical board, Kottayam. The Tribunal, however, scaled down the percentage of disability of the petitioner to 12%, without assigning valid and c