Compensation in personal injury cases must reflect actual economic losses and disabilities, correctly assessing income and functional impairment based on evidence.

ORDER

This is an appeal filed by the petitioner seeking enhancement of compensation. The claim petition namely O.P.(MV).No.1122 of 2011 was filed by the petitioner before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakkuda seeking compensation for the injuries sustained to him in a motor accident occurred on 11.07.2011. According to the claimant, the accident occurred, when the motor cycle on which the petitioner was pillion riding, skidded off and he was thrown off on the road. On account of the accident he sustained very serious injuries leading to permanent disablement. According to the petitioner he was working as a welder at the relevant time with a monthly income of Rs.10,000/-. The total amount of compensation claimed by him was Rs.24,21,000/-, but limited to Rs.15,00,000/-.

2. The Insurance Company alone contested the case. They filed written statement admitting the coverage of policy, but disputed the liability on various grounds. The quantum of compensation was also seriously disputed by them. Evidence in this case consists of Ext.A1 to A10 from the side of appellant. The disability certificate issued by the Medical Board was marked as Ext.X1. No evidence was adduced from the side of the respondents. After the trial, the Tribunal passed an award allowing a total compensation of Rs.11,17,300/- and the 3rd respondent Insurance Company was directed to deposit the said amount along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation this appeal is filed by the appellant/petitioner.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company. One of the main contentions urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the monthly income taken by the Tribunal is only Rs.5,000/-, which is on lower side. According to him, he has produced Ext.A10 employment certificate indicating that the appellant was working as a welder at the time of accident. It was also pointed out by him that in Ext.A1 FIR, the avocation of the appellant is specifically mentioned as welder. Therefore, the monthly income taken by the Tribunal requires to be reviewed. In the light of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court inSyed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company [ (2014) 2 SCC 735 ] and Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd [ (2011) 13 SCC 236 ], the monthly income taken by the Tribunal is on lower side. Going by the principles laid down in the said judgment, in respect of a person without no known income, the notional income can be fixed as Rs.4,500/- for the year 2004 and Rs.500/- each shall be added in respect of the subsequent years. While computing the monthly income in this case, based on the said principles, the monthly income can be fixed at Rs.8,000/-. However, in this case, there is some evidence to show that the appellant was a welder at the relevant time. The above fact is evident from Ext.A10 employment certificate. It is true that Ext.A10 is not proved by examining the person who has issued the same. However, the fact that the avocation of the appellant finds a mention in the Ext.A1 FIR is a factor which can be taken note of while considering this issue. Therefore, since there is already some evidence with regard to the avocation of the appellant namely, welder, the monthly income can be fixed on higher rate than usually taken in respect of persons without known sources of income. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month shall be ideal for the purpose of computing the compensation.

4. The next aspect highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellant is that, on account of the injuries sustained, he has sustained functional disability at the rate of 100%. It was pointed out by him that even though the whole body disability certified in Ext.A7 was 52%, the Tribunal, taking note of the physical as well as me