The court established that compensation must adequately reflect the severity of injuries and lifelong impacts, enhancing the total compensation to Rs.48,31,706/- based on established legal principles.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 29^th day of January, 2025

The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.1199/2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manjeri is the appellant herein. ((For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal) red 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 28.7.2012. According to the petitioner, on 28.7.2012 at about 10 a.m., while he was riding his motor cycle from Valorangal to Kalaputtu Kandam a Tata sumo car bearing registration No. KL-5P-8322 driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit on the motor cycle and as a result of which he fell down and sustained serious injuries.

3. The 1^st respondent is the owner, the 2^nd respondent is the driver, 3^rd respondent is the insured and the 4^th 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 Rs.15,00,000/-

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 the oral testimony of PW1 and and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A9, and X1. 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.11,84,000/- 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. Prajisha M, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Smt. Latha Susan Cherian, the learned Standing Counsel for the 4^th 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 a Tiles worker, earning Rs.6,000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs5,500/-. 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 2012 will come to Rs.8,500/-. 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 inRamachandrappa (supra), his notional income is liable to be fixed as that of a coolie, at Rs.8,500/-

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

“(1). Traumatic cervical spine injury with quadriplegia, (2) fracture both bones (L) forearm, (3) fracture both bones (r) forearm, (4) left parietal EDH, (5) thin linear oblique fracture in (L) left temporal bone, (6) vertical fracture at both end plates and posterior margin, (7) mild displacement of posterior vertical body margin with mild compression of the thecal, sac and spinal code, (8) diffuse hyper intensity at C5 C6.”

13. Exhibit X1 disability certificate shows that the petitioner suffered 75% permanent physical disability. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit hat though the permanent physical disability of the petitioner was assessed at 75% by the Medical Board, he is unable to move without the help of others and that too only in wh