JUDGMENT

The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.)No.1008/2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode is the appellant herein. The respondents in the O.P. are the respondents herein. The petitioner filed the above O.P. under Section 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 14.01.2016.

2. According to the petitioner, while she was standing by the side of the road near old Corporation Building, an autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-11-AA-145 driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner and in exorbitant speed, abruptly swerved his vehicle. In the process the autorickshaw overturned and fell on the body of the petitioner. As a result, she sustained serious injuries.

3. The 2^nd respondent filed a written statement admitting the accident, valid insurance policy and denying negligence on part of the 1^st respondent.

4. The evidence in the case consists of Exts.A1 to A8 and C1.

5. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.74,194/- rounded to Rs.74,500/-.

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

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

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

8. Heard Sri.A.V.M.Salahudin, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, and Sri.Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil, learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

9. The points: One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, though she was a tailor cum student, her notional income was fixed at Rs.2,500/-, which is too meager. It is argued that, during the year 2016, even the notional income of a Coolie, in the light of a dictum laid down in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236] , will come to Rs.10,500/-. Therefore, according to him, the notional income fixed by the Tribunal less than that of a Coolie is liable to be rectified. It is true that the petitioner could not prove his claim that, she was a tailor by profession. Therefore, her notional income is liable to be fixed as that of a Coolie, at Rs.10,500/-.

10. In the accident, the petitioner sustained fracture tibia right. As per Ext.C1 disability certificate, the permanent disability of the petitioner is assessed as 6%. However, the Tribunal has scaled down the percentage of disability to 3%. It appears that Ext.C1 disability certificate was marked without objection. In the above circumstances, if the Tribunal was not satisfied with the percentage of disability assessed in the disability certificate, the remedy was to refer the petitioner to a medical board. Having not resorted to such a remedy, the Tribunal was not justified in scaling down the percentage of disability from 6 to 3. Therefore, I hold that, the percentage of permanent disability of the petitioner is liable to be fixed at 6%.

11. Since, the petitioner was aged 18 at the date of the accident, 40% of the income is to be added towards future prospects and the multiplier to be applied is 18.

12. Relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sidram v. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd. and ors. [2023 (3) SCC 439], the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent argued that, in cases where the percentage of disability is less, future prospects cannot be awarded. In paragraph 31 of the above decision, Hon’ble Apex Court held that,

“34. It is now a well settled position of law that even in cases of permanent disablement Incurred as a result of a motor-accident, the claimant can seek, apart from compensation for future loss of income, amounts for future prospects as well. We have come across many orders of different tribunals and unfortunately affirmed by different High Courts, taking the view that the claimant is no