Compensation for severe injuries must reflect the lifelong care required, with emphasis on adequate amounts for pain, suffering, and bystander expenses.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner in OP(MV).186/2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, is the appellant. He filed the above OP under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 16.1.2007.

2. According to the petitioner, while he was travelling in a mini bus bearing registration No.KL-05/N 8562 from Thrissur to Ernakulam through NH 47, a Goods Carriage Omni van bearing registration No.KL9/H 6338 driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit on the petitioner’s vehicle and as a result of which, he sustained serious injuries. According to him the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 2^nd respondent. Respondents 1 and 3 are the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. In the OP he claimed a compensation of Rs.30 Lakhs.

3. The 3^rd respondent, who alone contested the case admitted the accident as well as valid insurance policy. However, they disputed the liability to pay compensation for the alleged treatment underwent by the petitioner in foreign countries. They also contended that there was no negligence on the part of the 2^nd respondent.

4. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimonies of PW1 to

3 and Exts.A1 to A26. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.17,97,400/-. Being aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner preferred this appeal.

5. Now the point that arise for consideration is the following :

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable ?

6. Heard Sri.P.V.Baby, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.V.P.K.Panicker, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

7. Though in the written statement, the 3^rd respondent has taken a contention that there was no negligence on the part of the 2^nd respondent/driver, no such contention was taken at the time of the argument. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was taken to St.James hospital, Chalakudy where he was treated for a long period. Then he was shifted to Amritha Insitute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Edappally and underwent open reduction of dorsal spine and anterior and posterior fixation of C7-D1 vertebra. He underwent further treatment at Caritas hospital, Kottayam on 19.2.2007. On 9.3.2007 he was admitted at the Institute of Guttmann, Spain and underwent rehabilitation procedures. He was discharged on 30.6.2007 and again admitted in a Rehabilitation Centre in Austria. Due to the severity of the spinal code injury sustained in the accident, now the petitioner is in Paraplegic stage. 8. The fact that the petitioner sustained serious spinal code injury resulting in Paraplegia is not in dispute. The petitioner was examined before the Tribunal through an Advocate Commissioner. After evaluating the evidence, the trial Court observed that the petitioner is totally bed-ridden. He needs the assistance of one or two bystanders. Catheter is being used for removing urine. Fecal matter is removed by manual evacuation. He needs two pairs of surgical gloves for evacuation of fecal matter. He requires lot of cotton and bandages and lotion to clean and dress the bed sores.

9. As per Ext.P9 disability certificate issued by PW2, the petitioner is in Paraplegia condition. PW2 assessed his physical disability as 80% and his loss of earning capacity as 100%. Even then, the Tribunal has taken only 70% disability for the purpose of computing loss of disability. Considering the fact that the petitioner is in Paraplegic condition, his functional disability is to be treated 100%. Therefore, for the purpose of computing the loss of disability, his functional disability is taken as 100%.

10. The petitioner claimed that he was working as Office Administrator in a private school at the time of the accident and getting a monthly salary of Rs.7000/-. The Tribunal fixed the not