Compensation for injuries must be just and reasonable, reflecting the severity of injuries and their impact on the victim's life, including future medical expenses.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner in OP(MV).1475/2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, is the appellant. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal.

2. According to the petitioner on 30.8.2009 at about 2.30 p.m. while he was riding a motorcycle, a Maruthi car bearing registration No.KL-8/Q-3564 driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motorcycle of the petitioner and as a result of which he along with the pillion rider fell down and sustained serious injuries.

3. The 1^st respondent is the owner and 3^rd respondent is the insurer of the Maruthi car. 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.45,80,000/- limited to Rs.25,00,000/-.

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 Exts.A1 to A29 marked from the side of the petitioner and Exts.X1 to X3. 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.1160250/- 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. P.V. Baby, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Smt. S. Jayasree, 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. In the accident the petitioner sustained serious injuries and later on his right leg above knee was amputated. The injuries sustained by him in the accident are:

1. 5x3 cm lacerated wound anterior aspect of middle 1/3^rd of right thigh.

2. Type III B open comminuted fracture right femur with bone loss.

3. Lacerated would 3x2 cm anterior medial aspect of promimal 1/3^rd of right leg with surrounding multiple abrasions and internal degloving injury.

4. 5x1 cm lacerated wound medial aspect of heel with avulsion of the heel pad etc.

5. Fracture of right tibia with internal degloving injury and segmental fracture right fibula.

11. The petitioner was treated as inpatient for a total period of 53 days in several spells. He also suffered chronic osteomyelitis of right tibia with persistent sinus. He also suffered from post operative infection. As per Ext.A25 disability certificate issued by a doctor his permanent physical disability was assessed as 25.30%. He was also examined by a Medical Board and Ext.X1 is the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board assessing his permanent physical disability at 25%. The functional disability of the petitioner taken by the Tribunal is also 25. The petitioner is a Driver-cum-Collection Agent by profession. In the claim petition the income claimed by him was Rs.6000/- per month and the Tribunal fixed his notional income at Rs.4500/-.

12. Along with I.A.1/2024 the petitioner produced several additional documents as Annexures A1 to A32, which includes the photographs of the petitioner showing the unhealed injuries sustained in the accident, the photographs taken after amputating his right leg above knee, photograph of his right leg with prosthesis, additional medical bills for Rs.10,31,539/-, discharge summaries issued from Lakeshore hospital etc., and Annexrues A9, disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board, Ernakulam states that after his right leg was amputated above knee, his permanent physical disability is 80%.

13. In I.A.1/2024 the petitioner stated that in the accident he sus