The court recalculated the compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident to Rs.24,51,200/- based on functional disability and loss of earnings, emphasizing the need for just compensation.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.1743 OF 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam is the appellant in MACA No.1366 of 2017. The 3^rd respondent in the above O.P(MV) is the appellant in MACA No.684 of 2017. (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 30.06.2013. According to the petitioner, on 30.06.2013 at about 05.15 p.m., while he was riding pillion on a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL-43-E-3911 ridden by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, the motorcycle hit against a car. As a result of the accident, the petitioner sustained serious injuries.

3. The 1^st 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 rider of the offending motorcycle. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. is Rs.38,91,500/-, limited to Rs.20,00,000/-.

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 testimony of PW1 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A15, B1, B2 and X1.

6. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal found negligence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle, awarded a total compensation of Rs.19,89,000/- and directed the insurer to pay the same.

7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the 3^rd respondent preferred MACA No.684 of 2017. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner preferred MACA No.1366 of 2017.

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.Rahul Sasi, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/claimant, and Sri.Tapas Varma A, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent/insurance company.

10. The Point:- In the accident the petitioner sustained head injury, frontal bone fracture, nasal bone fracture, fracture on both maxilla, right basal ganglionic bleed, fracture of right femur, lacerated wound on the right eye brow and upper lip and lacerated wound on the dorsum of right foot and deep abrasion over the right ear and tooth lost.

11. As per Exhibit X1 disability certificate, the petitioner suffered 23% permanent physical disability. It was issued by the medical board. However, considering the gravity of the injuries sustained by the petitioner and the fact that he was a painter by profession, his functional disability was taken as 50% by the Tribunal. According to the learned counsel for the insurer, the functional disability of the petitioner, taken as 50%, is on the higher side. He has also argued that the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/- as compensation for short expectation in life, which, according to him, is not allowable.

12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the notional income of the petitioner as fixed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Further according to him, after the accident the petitioner could not continue his job as a painter as before and as such his functional disability fixed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. The Tribunal, after examining the petitioner noticed that after the accident he could continue his job by sitting on a chair. It is true that the performance of a painter by sitting on a chair will be much less. The Tribunal fixed the functional disability of the petitioner after considering these aspects and hence, I do not find any grounds to disbelieve the same. Therefore, the functional disability of the petitioner is accepted as 50%, as fixed