The court established that compensation must adequately reflect the severity of injuries and the impact on the victim's life, enhancing the awarded amount based on proven income and disability.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.1326/2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, 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 Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 24.02.2016. According to the petitioner, on 24.02.2016 at about 5.30 a.m., while he was riding a motorcycle, a jeep bearing reg.no.KL-18-Q-981 driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit on the motorcycle and as a result of which he fell down and sustained serious injuries.

3. The 1^st respondent is the owner, the 2^nd respondent is the driver 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.8,07,000/- limited to Rs.6,00,000/-.

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 A15 and C1. No evidence was adduced by the respondents.

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.6,87,401/- 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 Sri.R.Sudhish, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Smt. Raji T. Bhaskar, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd 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. According to him, the petitioner was running a Chicken Stall, earning Rs.20,000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.9000/-. The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Ext.A15 a membership receipt issued from the Kerala Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samithi Ulliyeri Unit showing that he is a member of the said association and was running a Chicken Stall.

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 2016 will come to Rs.10,500/-. Since, the petitioner it has proved that he was running a Chicken Stall, his notional income is fixed at Rs.12,000/-, for the purpose of computing the loss of disability.

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

• Fracture both bone right leg with fracture lateral malleolus, segmental fracture of fibula and calcaneal tuberosity.

13. Ext.C1 disability certificate issued by the doctor appointed by the Tribunal shows that the petitioner suffered 28% permanent physical disability. The Tribunal, however, scaled down the percentage of disability of the petitioner to 14%, without assigning valid and cogent reasons. The law is settled that, if the Tribunal is not satisfied with the disability certificate produced by the petitioner, the remedy is to refer him to a medical board or higher Authority.(See Manikantan G. v. Janardhanan Nair and Others 2021 (5) KHC 305). Having not done so, the Tribunal was not justified in scaling down the percentage of disability from what is sho