The court reaffirmed that compensation for motor accident claims should account for actual earnings, functional disability, and future prospects of the injured party, following established precedents.

JUDGMENT

The appellant was the petitioner in OP (MV)

No.158/2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor. The respondent in the appeal was the third respondent/insurer before the Tribunal. As the respondent has admitted the insurance policy and its liability, the appellant has not impleaded the respondents 1 and 2 before the Tribunal as parties in the appeal. Therefore, for the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status in the claim petition.

2. The petitioner had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , claiming compensation on account of the injuries he sustained in an accident on 30.5.2004. It was his case that, on the above said date, while he was standing near Karukutty, a motor cycle bearing registration No.KL-7/H 9426 (motor cycle), driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the petitioner. The petitioner sustained serious injuries including a compound fracture of left leg, tibial plateau fracture right (schatzker Type V) and knee effusion. The petitioner was treated at the Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam, for a period of 128 days in five spells. The petitioner was a businessman by profession and earning a monthly income of Rs.25,000/-. The first respondent was the owner and the third respondent was the insurer of the motor cycle. The petitioner claimed a compensation of Rs.16,10,000/- from the respondents, which claim was limited to Rs.10,00,000/-.

3. The respondents 1 and 2 did not contest the proceedings and were set ex parte.

4. The third respondent had filed a written statement admitting that the motor cycle had a valid insurance coverage. Nevertheless, it was contended that the compensation claimed was highly excessive.

5. The petitioner examined the Doctor who issued Ext X1 disability certificate as PW1 and marked Exts A1 to A16 in evidence. The third respondent produced the insurance policy certificate, which was marked as Ext B1.

6. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, allowed the claim petition, in part, by permitting the petitioner to realise from the third respondent an amount of Rs.3,90,924/-, with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

7. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner is in appeal.

8. Heard; Smt.Anupama Johny, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner and Sri.T.V Ajayakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent /insurer.

9. The sole question that emerges for consideration in the appeal is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and just.

Negligence and liability

10. Ext A2 charge-sheet filed by the Angamaly Police in crime No.280/2004 substantiates that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the second respondent. Indisputably, the first respondent was the owner and the third respondent was the insurer of the motor cycle. The respondents have not let in any evidence to discredit Ext A2 charge-sheet. The third respondent has also not proved that the first respondent had violated the insurance policy conditions. Therefore, the third respondent is to indemnify the liability of the first respondent arising out of the accident.

Notional Income

11. The petitioner had claimed that he was a Businessman by profession and earning a monthly income of Rs.25,000/-. For the want of materials, the Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.2,500/-.

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011) 13 SCC 236] has fixed the notional income of a coolie worker in the year 2004 at Rs.4,500/- per month.

13. Following the yardstick in the aforecited decision and considering the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2004, I refix the notional monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.4,500/-.

Multiplier

14. Admittedly, the