The court established that compensation must reflect the severity of injuries and loss of earnings, enhancing the total compensation to Rs.7,30,448/- based on the evidence presented.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.201/2009 on the file of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, is the appellant. The respondents in the O.P. are the respondents herein. 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 111.01.2007.

2. According to the petitioner, while he was traveling in a Maruthi Van bearing Registration No.KL-11-L-4399 along the Kozhikode-Wayanad public road, a KSRTC bus, bearing Registration No.KL-15-3599 driven by the 3^rd respondent, in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the Maruthi Van. As a result of which, he sustained serious injuries.

3. The 1^st respondent is the owner and the 2^nd respondent is the Official of the 1^st respondent. Before the Tribunal, the respondents 2 and 3 remained ex-parte. The 1^st respondent filed a written statement contending that there is contributory negligence.

4. The evidence in the case consists of the documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A7. No evidence was adduced by the respondents.

5. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.43,202/-.

6. Being dissatisfied with 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.P.V.Anoop, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, and Sri.Alex Antony Sebastian, the learned Standing Counsel for the KSRTC.

9. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the notional income of the petitioner fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- is too meager. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner was employed in a private firm, getting a salary of Rs.13,000/- per month. He has also produced Ext.A4 salary certificate. However, nobody was examined to prove the same, and as such, Ext.A4 remains not proved. In the above circumstances, in the light of the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011) 13 SCC 236], the notional income of the petitioner is liable to be fixed at Rs. 6,000/-.

10. In the accident, the petitioner sustained the following injuries, as noticed in Ext.A2 wound certificate and Ext.A3 reference card:

“Compound comminuted fracture shaft of femur (right) & compound, bicondylar Tibia (right), Open Knee (Right) & comminuted fracture Patella (right), Patellar Tendon Rupture (right), compound fracture Supracondylar Humerus (right), Radial nerve palsy.”

11. As per the direction of this Court, the petitioner was examined by a Medical Board constituted by the Superintendent of Government Medical College, Calicut. As per the above disability certificate, the percentage of permanent disability of the petitioner is 32%. For the purpose of reference, the said certificate is marked as Ext.X1. As per Ext.X1, the injuries noted by the Medical Board are as follows : -

“Alleged h/o RTA- 2007, had compound fracture right femur, Bicondylar fracture right knee, pattelectomy, right humerus fracture, ORIF done, Implant insitu, Romy Restriction at knee, Difficulty in squatty, weak knee extensions with arthritic changes in X-ray.”

12. Since Ext.X1 is issued by a Medical Board, I do not find any grounds to disbelieve the percentage of disability fixed therein. Accordingly, the disability of the petitioner is fixed at 32%.

13. Since the petitioner was aged 35 years on the date of the accident, 40% of the income is to be added towards future prospects, and the multiplier to be applied is 16. Therefore, the compensation for loss of disability will come to Rs.5,16,096/-.

14. Towards loss of earnings, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.9000/- assuming that he lost income for a period of three months. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, and