The court established that compensation must accurately reflect the severity of injuries, justifying enhancements across various compensation categories due to inadequate initial assessments.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner in OP(MV) No.2520/2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Tribunal, Thrissur, has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the tribunal on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 20.05.2013.

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

On 20.05.2013, at about 10.30 a.m., while the petitioner was riding the motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-49-A-2290 along Thrissur-Palakkad National Highway, and when reached near Erimayur KTDC Hotel at Wadakkenchery, a car bearing registration No.KL-08-AR--8417 driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit on the motorcycle which the petitioner was riding. Due to the impact of the hit, the petitioner was thrown onto the road, causing him serious injuries.

3. The owner and driver of the offending car were arrayed as 1st and 2nd respondents respectively, whereas, the insurer of the said car was arrayed as the 3rd respondent.

4. The 3rd respondent contested the petition by filing a written statement, mainly disputing the quantum of compensation claimed, despite admitting insurance coverage of the car involved in the accident.

5. During the trial, the documents produced from the side of the petitioner were marked as Exts.A1 to A9. A copy of the insurance policy pertaining to the offending car, produced from the side of the 3rd respondent, was marked in evidence as Ext.B1.

6. After the trial, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the car bearing registration No.KL-08-AR--8417 by the 2nd respondent and being the insurer, the 3rd respondent was found liable to pay the compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed at Rs.1,67,300/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate costs. Dissatisfied with the said compensation awarded, the petitioner has come up with this appeal.

7. Heard Sri. A.R. Nimod, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Seema, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, insurance company.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under various heads, is too meager and will no way commensurate with the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and is insufficient to compensate the hardships and inconveniences met by the petitioner due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. According to the counsel, though the petitioner suffered a disability of 12% due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the tribunal scaled down the disability to 5% without assigning any convincing reason and awarded only a nominal amount as compensation under the head of permanent disability. The learned counsel further urged that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under the head of pain and sufferings, loss of amenities and enjoyment in life, etc., is also on the lower side. In response, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent insurance company urged that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under each and every head is adequate and justifiable, and warrants no interference.

9. 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. A perusal of the award reveals that, for the purpose of determining compensation under the head of permanent disability and loss of earnings, the tribunal assessed the income of the petitio