Compensation for permanent disability due to limb amputation must be 'just,' encompassing accurate notional income, future prospects, and full provision for recurring requirements including periodic replacement and maintenance of prosthetic devices throughout the victim's life expectancy to ensure dignity and functional independence.

JUDGMENT :

M.B. SNEHALATHA, J.

1. Appellant, who is the claimant in O.P(MV) No.449/2009 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2. Appellant's/claimant's case is that on 6.4.2008 at about 9.45 pm., while he was travelling on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-13K/8503 and when he reached near Alinkeel at Narath, a car bearing registration No.KL-13M/2813, driven by R1 in the O.P in a rash and negligent manner, hit on the motorcycle and as a result of which the claimant sustained grievous injuries. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of R1 in the O.P, who was the driver of the offending car. R2 and R3 in the O.P are the RC owner and insurer of the offending car respectively.

3. By the impugned award, a sum of Rs.19,54,900/- with 8% interest per annum was awarded by the Tribunal. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, claimant has preferred this appeal, contending that the claimant, who suffered grievous injuries and whose right leg was amputated above the knee, was awarded only a meager sum by the Tribunal; that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and fair compensation as mandated by statute. It was contended by the learned counsel for the claimant that though there is a definite finding that the claimant sustained grievous injuries and his right leg was amputated, only a sum of Rs.3,47,900/- was awarded for prosthetic leg and no amount was awarded for the periodic replacement of the prosthetic leg and towards maintenance charges. It was further contended that though during the period of accident, the claimant was employed in Sharjah and he was earning Rs.25,000/- per month, the Tribunal took the monthly income as Rs.4,500/- per month for assessing compensation, which is too low.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent insurance company submitted that the Tribunal has awarded just compensation; that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal does not call for any enhancement; that the claimant failed to prove that prior to the accident he was employed abroad and was earning Rs.25,000/- and therefore, the Tribunal was right in taking the notional income as Rs.4,500/- per month. The learned counsel for the respondent insurance company further contended that the accident took place in the year 2008 and the award was passed in the year 2013; that the claimant has not produced any documents to show that he has incurred any amount for replacement of the artificial limb and therefore, there is no reason to enhance the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head cost of prosthetic leg.

5. Indisputably, the appellant/claimant met with a motor vehicle accident on 6.4.2008 and he sustained grievous injuries in the said accident. The case of the claimant that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending car, is also not in dispute. Admittedly, the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent insurance company/R3 in the O.P.

6. Exts.A2 and A3 medical records produced by the claimant would show that he sustained grievous injuries on his right leg, knee and thigh and his right lower limb was amputated on 12.4.2008. Claimant was aged 24 at the time of accident. Ext.A5 is the disability certificate issued by the medical board to the effect that claimant sustained 80% permanent whole body disability.

7. It is