The court emphasized the necessity of adequate compensation for injuries, correcting the Tribunal's assessment of disability and pain and suffering.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.257/2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha, is the appellant herein. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal)

2. The petitioner filed the above O.P. under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 14.02.2011. According to the petitioner, on 14.02.2011 at about 10.00 a.m., while he was travelling in his scooter, a car bearing reg.no. KL-07-Z-3585 driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit on the scooter and as a result of the accident, the petitioner sustained serious injuries.

3. The 1^st respondent is the driver, the 2^nd respondent is the owner and 3^rd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. According to the petitioner, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. is limited to Rs.1,50,000/-.

4. The insurance company filed a written statement, admitting the accident as well as policy, but disputing the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.

5. The evidence in the case consists of documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A11. No evidence was adduced by the respondents.

6. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal found negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, awarded a total compensation of Rs.91,918/- rounded to Rs.91920/- and directed the insurer to pay the same.

7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner preferred this appeal.

8. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following:

Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

9. Heard Smt. Binitha James, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Sri.P.M.M. Najeeb Khan, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is regarding the income of the petitioner as fixed by the Tribunal. According to him, the petitioner was working as electrical contractor, earning Rs.10000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.4000/-. The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable.

11. As per the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236], the notional income of a coolie, in the year 2011 will come to Rs.8000/-. Since the petitioner could not prove his job or income as claimed in the OP, in the light of a dictum laid down in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa (supra) , his notional income is liable to be fixed as that of a coolie, at Rs.8000/-.

12. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries:

1. Multiple abrasions right shoulder, right side of face, right chin and left knee.

2. C5, C6, C7 disc prolapse.

3. Fracture proximal phalanx right little finger.

4. Neck pain.

5. Mallet finger deformity right little finger.

13. Ext.A7 disability certificate shows that the petitioner suffered 15% permanent physical disability. It was issued by the medical board. The Tribunal, however, scaled down the percentage of disability of the petitioner to 5%, without assigning valid and cogent reasons. The law is settled that, if the Tribunal is not satisfied with the disability certificate produced by the petitioner, the remedy is to refer him to a medical board or higher Authority.(See Manikantan G. v. Janardhanan Nair and Others 2021 (5)KHC 305). Having not done so, the Tribunal was not justified in scaling down the percentage of disability from what is shown in the disability certificate. I do find any grounds to disb