Compensation can be enhanced based on factual assessment of injuries, permanent disability, and loss of earnings, ensuring just and reasonable outcomes.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No. 1465 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, 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 02.04.2019.

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

On 02.04.2019, at about 7.15 a.m., while the petitioner was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No. KL-75-F-4568 through Padanilam- Narikkuni road and reached near a place called Kuzhiprakunnu, a car bearing registration No. KL-11-AN-8055 driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit on the motorcycle ridden by the petitioner. Due to the impact of the hit, the petitioner was thrown onto the road, causing severe injuries on him.

3. The owner and driver of the offending car were arrayed as 1^st and 2^nd respondents respectively, whereas, the insurer of the car was arrayed as the 3^rd respondent. The 3^rd 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 A12. 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-11-AN-8055 by the 2^nd respondent, and being the insurer, the 3^rd respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The compensation was quantified at Rs. 3,64,200/- with interest at the rate of 8% 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 the learned counsel for both sides.

7. A perusal of the award reveals that, for the purpose of determining compensation under the head of permanent disability, the tribunal assessed the income of the petitioner at Rs.12,000/- Though in the petition, it was contented that the petitioner was a tile worker earning a monthly income of Rs. 25,000/- at the time of the accident, no evidence, whatsoever, was adduced from the side of the petitioner to substantiate his contentions regarding his occupation and income. Anyhow, the tribunal, by applying the principles laid down in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236], assessed the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs. 12,000/- notionally. I find no reason to interfere with the said assessment made by the tribunal regarding the income of the petitioner.

8. In order to prove that the petitioner suffered permanent disability due to the injuries sustained in the accident, a certificate issued by a doctor is produced and marked in evidence as Ext. A10. In Ext. A10 disability certificate, it is noted that the petitioner suffered a permanent disability of 10% due to the injuries sustained in the accident. However, the tribunal scaled down the said disability and adopted only 5% disability while computing compensation under the head of permanent disability. However, no convincing reason is seen assigned by the tribunal for scaling down the percentage of disability assessed by the doctor. I am cognizant of the fact that the doctor who issued the disability certificate was not examined from the side of the petitioner. Nevertheless, the non-examination of the doctor who issued the disability certificate itself is not a reason to scale down the disa