The appellant was the petitioner in OP(MV) No.368/2008 on the files of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda. The said claim petition was submitted by the appellant seeking compensation for the injuries sustained to him in a motor accident that occurred on 12.02.2006.

2. The accident occurred, when he was travelling in a car bearing registration No.KL08/1400, it hit against the lorry bearing registration No.KA 51/489 driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner. The 1st respondent was the owner of the said vehicle and it was insured with the 3rd respondent. According to the appellant, he was an ‘A’ Grade Government Contractor with a monthly income of Rs.3 lakhs. Due to the accident, he sustained very serious injuries and it resulted in serious physical disablement thereby preventing him from pursuing his avocation as a contractor. The claim petition was submitted in such circumstances.

3. The 3rd respondent filed a written statement admitting the coverage of policy for the said vehicle. However, they denied the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. The quantum of compensation was also disputed by them. The said claim petition was tried along with OP(MV) Nos.369, 370 and 371 of 2008 which arose from the very same accident and disposed of by a common award.

4. To substantiate the contentions the claimants examined PWs1 to 6 and Exts.A1 to A39 were marked. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. After the trial, the Tribunal found that the incident occurred due to the negligence of the 2nd respondent and being the insurer, the 3rd respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.19,10,390/- and the said amount was directed to be deposited with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. This appeal is submitted by the appellant in such circumstances, being dissatisfied by the quantum of compensation.

5. Heard Sri. Joseph Gopuran, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. P. Jacob Mathew the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent insurance company.

6. The only question that arises for consideration is whether any additional amount is to be granted as compensation to the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that, the amounts awarded by the tribunal under various heads, particularly under the head of disability, were grossly inadequate and require reconsideration, which is opposed by the learned counsel for the insurer. The first aspect highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellant is with respect to the monthly income adopted by the tribunal. It is to be noted that, even though he claimed a monthly income of Rs.3,00,000/- lakhs which he was earning from his avocation as an A Class Government Contractor, the Tribunal took the monthly income as only Rs.10,000/-. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent on the other hand would point out that, the monthly income was correctly taken, based on the materials placed on record.

7. In the appeal, the appellant produced the income tax return submitted by him pertaining to the assessment year 2005- 2006, the year during which the accident occurred. The said document was produced in I.A. No.2/2024 and this Court has allowed the said I.A. and the said document was already marked it as Ext.A40. From the perusal of the said document, it can be seen that, during the assessment year 2005-2006, the appellant declared a gross income of Rs.6,94,626.65 and the tax paid by him was Rs.1,84,958/-. Thus, the annual income after deducting the tax would come to Rs.5,09,668/-. To substantiate the income and the earning capacity of the appellant, the learned counsel also brought the attention of this Court to Ext.A27, which is an agreement entered by him with the Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, (R&B), Centre Circle, Aluva with respect to the construction of a road, wherein the total amount involved was Rs.3,2