Compensation for injuries must reflect the severity of injuries and the impact on the victim's ability to work, ensuring just and reasonable compensation.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No. 570/2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Punalur, 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 31.08.2010. According to the petitioner, on 31.08.2010 at about 8 p.m., while he was riding pillion on a motorcycle, a Maruti car bearing Reg.No.KL-24/7148 driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit on the motorcycle and 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 the 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.10,00,000/-.

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 documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A23.

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.1,58,846/- (rounded to Rs.1,58,850/-) 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 Smt. Anchal C. Vijayan, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Sri. Lawrence D Cunha, 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 was working as rubber tapper, earning Rs.5,000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.4,000/-.

11. 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 2010 will come to Rs.7,500/-.Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for fixing the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.7,500/-. The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable. Since the notional income of a coolie, in the year 2010 will come to Rs.7,500/-, in order to award just and reasonable compensation, in the light of a dictum laid down in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa (supra), the notional income of the petitioner is liable to be fixed as that of a coolie, at Rs.7,500/-.

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

1. Fracture Type III compound both bones right leg.

2. Heel pad avulation.

3. Internal fixation done.

From Ext.A23 discharge summary it is revealed that, because of the fracture to the tibia iIlizarov ring was fixed and it was removed only on 14.06.2016.

13. As per Exhibit A18 disability certificate the petitioner suffered 30% permanent physical disability. It was issued by department orthopaedics, Medical college Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. The Tribunal, has accepted the permanent physical disability of the petitioner as such. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, because of the injuries sustained in the accident there was shortening of 10 cm on the right leg and as such he being a rubber tapper by profession, his functional disability to be t