Enhancement of compensation in personal injury cases must reflect the severity of injuries and potential impacts on earning capacity, irrespective of initial claims.

JUDGMENT :

(JOBIN SEBASTIAN, J.)

The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.282 of 2017 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- II, Manjeri has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on account of the injuries sustained by her in a motor accident that occurred on 08.06.2016.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:-

On 08.06.2016, at around 7.30 p.m., while the petitioner was travelling as a pillion rider on a Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KL-52/E-2627 ridden by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner and when the motor cycle reached at a place called Ramapuram, the same skidded on the road and the petitioner fell down from the motor cycle and sustained serious injuries.

3. The owner cum rider of the motor cycle bearing Registration No.KL-52/E-2627 was arrayed as 1^st respondent, whereas, the insurer of the said motor cycle was arrayed as the 2^nd respondent. The 2^nd respondent filed written statement mainly disputing the quantum of compensation claimed, despite admitting insurance coverage for the motor cycle involved in the accident. During trial, the documents produced from the side of the petitioner were marked as Exts. A1 to A7. The disability certificate issued by a competent medical board was marked as Ext.X1. From the side of the respondents no evidence, whatsoever, was aduced.

4. After trial, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle bearing registration No. KL-52/E-2627 by the 1^st respondent and being the insurer, the 2^nd respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The compensation was quantified at Rs. 10,49,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate costs. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the petitioner has come up with this appeal.

5. I heard learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the impugned award as well as the available materials.

6. From the rival contentions raised, it is gatherable that the main dispute that revolves around this appeal is with respect to the quantum of compensation awarded. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is too meager and is not sufÏcient to compensate the hardships and inconveniences caused to the petitioner due to the injuries sustained in the accident. According to the Counsel, the Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the petitioner reasonably and hence awarded only a meager amount as compensation under the head of permanent disability and loss of earnings. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent, the insurance company urged that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under each and every head is reasonable and hence, warrants no interference.

7. From a perusal of the impugned award, it is gatherable that for the purpose of determining the compensation under the head of permanent disability and loss of earnings, the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs. 10,000/-. The petitioners case is that she was a Coolie worker at the time of the accident and was earning a monthly income of Rs. 10,000/-. It was mainly taking note of the fact that, the petitioner has claimed an income of Rs. 10,000/-in the petition, the tribunal assessed the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.10,000/- only. However, as the provision contained under Section 166 of MOTOR VEHICLES ACT is a beneficial legislation. It was incumbent upon the Tribunal to ensure that the compensation awarded by it under various heads is just, fare and reasonable irrespective of the c