The court established that compensation must reflect the severity of injuries and the impact on the victim's life, enhancing the awarded amount to Rs.12,60,900/-.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.927/2014 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 25.12.2013. According to the petitioner, on 25.12.2013 at about 2.30 p.m., while he was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle, a car bearing reg.no.KL-11-N-4726 driven by the 2^nd 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 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.46,23,000/-.

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 A11 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.8,22,420/- 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.K.Muhammed Salahudhin, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Sri.E.M.Joseph, 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 working as supervisor cum coolie, earning Rs.800 per day, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.5000/-. Though the petitioner has produced Ext.A9 certificate stating that he was working as supervisor and concrete worker getting a daily income of Rs.800/- he has not examined any witness to prove the same.

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 2013 will come to Rs.9000/-. Since the petitioner could not prove his job or income as claimed in the OP, in the light of a dictum laid down in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa (supra) , his notional income is liable to be fixed as that of a coolie, at Rs.9000/-.

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

i. Fracture Sacrum.

ii. Fracture lower end radius comminuted right

iii. Fracture left radius with radio ulnar joint dislocation.

iv. Fracture left forearm.

v. Pelvic sumphasis diastasis

vi. Galeazzia fracture dislocation left.

vii. Pelvic injury combined type.

viii. ORIF pubic symphysis.

ix. Percutaneous llio Sacral screw fixation left.

x. ORIF distal radius right.

xi. ORIF left radius with K wire fixation.

xii. Public diastasis with anterior column fracture left side.

xiii. Undisplaced anterior column fracture right.

xiv. Type II Sacral fracture left side.

xv. Comminuted intraarticular fracture left distal radius

xvi. Neural foramen involving the left lamina of SI and Sl and S2 spinuous processes.

xvii. Public diastases noted with adjacent hematoma. Linear Haematoma noted in the perivesical region, retro and e