Compensation awarded in personal injury cases must be just and adequate, reflecting the seriousness of injuries and their impact on earning capacity.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No. 772 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, 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 26.03.2018.

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

On 26.03.2018, at around 2.45 p.m., while the petitioner was standing on the side of Perinthalmanna - Malappuram public road, a car bearing registration No. KL-53-F-9619 driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit the petitioner. Due to the impact of the hit, the petitioner was thrown onto the road causing severe injuries on her.

3. The owner cum driver of the offending car was arrayed as 1^st respondent, whereas, the insurer of the car 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 car involved in the accident.

4. During trial, the documents produced from the side of the petitioner were marked as Ext.A1 to A8. The disability certificate issued by the medical board was marked as Ext.X1. No evidence, whatsoever, was adduced from the side of the respondents.

5. After 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-53-F-9619 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. 15,29,100/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate costs. Seeking enhancement of the said compensation awarded, the petitioner has come up with this appeal.

6. Heard Sri. R. Sreehari, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. Kiran Peter Kuriakose, the learned standing counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

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 would submit that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under various heads is too meager and will not commensurate with the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner. According to the counsel, the tribunal erred in awarding reasonable amount as compensation under the heads of pain and sufferings, loss of amenities and enjoyment in life etc. Per contra learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent, insurance company, would submit that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under every head is just, fair, and reasonable and hence, warrants no interference.

8. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that for the purpose of determining compensation under the head of permanent disability and loss of earnings, the tribunal assessed the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs. 11,500/-. In the petition, it was contended that the petitioner was a tailor by profession at the time of the accident and was earning a monthly income of Rs. 15,000/-. Apart from taking such a bare contention in the petition, no evidence whatsoever has been produced from the side of the petitioner to substantiate her contentions regarding her occupation and income. I am not unmindful of the fact that it is not prudent to expect that a lady doing tailoring work in her home could produce documentary evidence to prove her income and occupation. Anyhow, it was after considering the year of the accident and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramachan