The assessment of compensation for injuries must reflect the impact of functional disability on earning capacity, not just physical disability percentages.

JUDGMENT :

(C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, J.)

The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.723 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IV, Pathanamthitta is the appellant in MACA. No.2289 of 2018. The 3^rd respondent in the said O.P. is the appellant in MACA No.2399 of 2018. (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 3.5.2010. According to the petitioner, on 3.5.2010, at about 5.45 a.m., while he was riding a motorcycle from Adoor to Vadakkedathukavu, a Maruthi car bearing registration No.KL01R-TEMP-1364, driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motor cycle 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 car. 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.84,51,000/-

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 documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A31. 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.21,06,720/- and directed the insurer to pay the same.

7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner preferred MACA No.2289/2018 and the 3^rd respondent preferred MACA No.2399/2018.

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 Sri.A.N. Santhosh, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant in MACA.2289/2018, and Sri. E.M. Joseph, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent/appellant in MACA.2399/2018.

10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. The petitioner was a plus 2 student at the time of the accident. The learned counsel for the petitioner has disputed the notional income of the petitioner as fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.6,000/-. In support of his arguments he has relied upon some decisions:

11. In the decision in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v. Jibin John and Another (in MACA No.759/2015 decided on 4.10.2023), this court has fixed the notional income of a Plus Two student in the year 2008 at Rs.10,000/-. In the decision in Riyas v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (In MACA. No.3981/2018 decided on 201.2022), another Bench of this Court fixed the notional income of a Degree Student in the 2014 at Rs.12,000/-. Therefore, he prayed for fixing the notional income of the petitioner in par with the notional income fixed in the above cases.

12. In the light of 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 2010 will come to Rs.7,500/-. In the above circumstances, considering the entire facts, I hold that the notional income of the petitioner can be fixed at Rs.10,000/-.

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

“fracture of both bones right leg; and lacerated wound in face”

14. As per Exhibit A17 disability certificate issued by the medical board, the petitioner suffered 50% permanent physical disability. However, after evaluating the evidence of the petitioner as PW1 and also observing the petitioner, the Tribunal, fixed his functional disability at 70%. The