The court ruled that future earning capacity must be considered in compensation calculations for permanent disability, mandating a 40% addition to actual income.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No. 01 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-I, Thodupuzha, has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the tribunal on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 28.07.2017.

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

On 28.07.2017, at 7.50 a.m., while the petitioner was travelling in an autorikshaw bearing registration No.KL-37-9367 from Pampadumpara to Kattappana, driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner and when the autorikshaw reached near Aanakuthy bus stop, the autorikshaw overturned onto the road. Due to the same, the petitioner as well as other passengers in the autorikshaw sustained serious injuries.

3. The owner cum driver of the autorikshaw was arrayed as 1^st respondent, whereas, the insurer of the said autorikshaw was arrayed as the 2^nd respondent. The 2^nd respondent contested the petition by filing a written statement mainly disputing the quantum of compensation claimed, despite admitting insurance coverage for the autorikshaw involved in the accident. Petitioner's evidence consists of Exts. A1 to A25. The documents produced from the side of the respondents were marked as Ext. B1 and B2.

4. After trial, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the autorikhaw bearing registration No.KL-37-9367 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. 34,51,631/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate costs. Seeking enhancement of the said compensation awarded by the tribunal, the petitioner has come up with this appeal.

5. During the pendency of the appeal, the 1^st appellant/original appellant died, and hence, his legal heirs were impleaded as additional appellants.

6. I heard Sri. Mathew John, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Sebastian Varghese, the learned standing counsel for the respondents.

7. 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 by the tribunal. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, due to the injuries sustained in the accident, though the petitioner had sustained 100% disability, the tribunal omitted to make any addition to the actual income of the petitioner towards future prospects and awarded only a meager amount as compensation under the head of permanent disability. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent, the insurance company, urged that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under each and every head is reasonable and adequate, and warrants no interference.

8. From a perusal of the impugned award, it is gatherable that for the purpose of determining compensation under the head of permanent disability, the tribunal assessed the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs. 16,000/-. In the petition, it was claimed that the petitioner was a Mason by profession and earning a monthly income of Rs. 16,000/- at the time of the accident. When the petitioner was examined as PW1, he sticks on the stand that at the time of the accident, he was a Mason by profession, earning a monthly income of Rs. 16,000/-. No contra evidence, whatsoever, was produced from the side of the respondents to disprove the contention of the petitioner regarding his occupation and income. Moreover, the tribunal placed reliance mainly on a certificate issued by a constru