Compensation awarded in personal injury cases must accurately reflect disability assessment and multiplier based on factual evidence presented.

JUDGMENT :

C.S. SUDHA, J.

The aforesaid appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) by the third respondent/insurer in O.P.(MV) No.1232/2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 16/08/2019. The sole respondent herein is the claim petitioner, who has filed the cross objection claiming enhancement. In this appeal and cross objection, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition.

2. According to the claim petitioner, on 18/04/2016 at 04:00 p.m., he was riding motorcycle bearing registration no.KL-21/1879 through Kollam-Ayoor public road and when he reached near the  place by name Cheruvakkal junction, lorry bearing registration no.KL-25/B-1513 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries. A sum of Rs.80,00,000/- was claimed as compensation under various heads.

3. The first respondent/owner and the second respondent/driver remained ex parte.

4. The third respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the existence of a valid policy in respect of the offending vehicle. The age, occupation and income of the claim petitioner were disputed. It was contended that the compensation claimed was quite excessive.

5. Before the Tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A26 and Ext.X1 were marked on the side of the claim petitioner. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced from the side of the respondents.

6. The Tribunal on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the second respondent/driver of the offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of Rs.1,02,27,000/- together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation excluding interest for future treatment expenses. Aggrieved by the Award, the third respondent/insurer has come up in appeal.

7. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court.

8. Heard both sides

9. The award of compensation by the Tribunal under the following heads is challenged -

Age and multiplier

It was submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that the latter was aged 25 years at the time of the incident. Therefore, the correct multiplier to be applied was '18'. However, the Tribunal took '17' as the multiplier, which is an error that requires to be corrected. Per contra it was submitted by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the third respondent/insurer that no evidence was produced to prove the age of the claim petitioner and therefore the Tribunal was justified in taking the multiplier as '17'.

9.1. In the petition, the age of the claim petitioner is stated to be 25 years. Paragraph 4 of the written statement of the third respondent/insurer reads - “The age, occupation and income of the petitioner are false and hence denied. … … …”. In all the medical records that have been produced before the Tribunal, marked and admitted in evidence, the age of the claim petitioner is stated to be 25 years in the year 2016. These documents are not seen disputed or denied by the third respondent/insurer. That being so, the age of the claim petitioner can be taken to be 25 years at the time of the incident and therefore the Tribunal went wrong in taking '17' as the multiplier. The correct multiplier to be applied is '18'.

Percentage of f