JUDGMENT

Dated : 4^th April, 2025

The 2^nd respondent in OP(MV).444/2014 on the file of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, is the appellant. The above OP was filed by the original Petitioner under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 17.10.2013. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal).

2. According to the petitioner on 17.10.2013 at about 7.25 p.m while the minor injured along with the petitioner aged 22, were travelling in a motorcycle, a bus bearing registration No.KL-10-Z-7375 owned and negligently driven by the 1^st respondent hit on the motor cycle and as a result of which they fell down and sustained serious injuries. In the accident, the petitioner sustained serious spine injury and the Tribunal found that the functional disability suffered by the petitioner amounts to 100%, which is not under challenge.

3. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was a tailor and a fashion designer earning Rs.12,000/- per month. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Tribunal fixed the notional income of the petitioner at 12,000/-, which is also not seriously disputed by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant.

4. The main arguments advanced by the learned Senior counsel are to the effect that after taking the functional disability of the petitioner as 100% and assessing the loss of disability accordingly, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.7,20,000/- on the head 'loss of earning from the date of accident till the appeal period', a sum of Rs.20,79,000/- on the head 'expenses for physiotherapy for life time' (350 x 15 days x 12 months x 33 years), and another Rs.27,72,000/- on the head 'expenses for care by home nurses for life' (7000 x 12 x 33). Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each on the heads 'inability to perform marital duties, inability to perform motherly duties to the child and inability to take care of the family as a house wife'. Accordingly, a total sum of Rs.1,16,14,850/- was awarded by the Tribunal which according to the learned Senior counsel is too much on the higher side.

5. Relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalan D @ Lal and Another v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. , 2020 (9) SCC 805, he would argue that in the above case, to a 34 year old victim of road traffic accident suffering from 100% disability, the Apex Court has awarded only Rs.7,00,000/- as lump-sum compensation for medical attendance charges and future medical treatment and only Rs.3,00,000/- was awarded on the head pain and suffering and only a token amount of Rs.10,000/- was awarded on the head loss of amenities of life.

6. Relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court inSidram v. United India Insurance Company Limited and Ors. , 2023 (3) SCC 439, he would argue that in the case of a 19 year old victim of road traffic accident suffering from 100% disability, only Rs.50,000/- was awarded for loss of amenities of life and Rs.3,00,000/- was awarded towards loss of marriage prospects, Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded towards pain and suffering, that inAtul Thiwari v. Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. , 2025 ICO 22 , in the case of a victim suffering from 60% permanent disability involved in an accident in the year 2009, the total compensation awarded by the Apex Court was Rs.48,00,000/- and that inJithendran v. The New India Assurance Company Limited (2022) 15 SCC 620 , to the victim of a road traffic accident involved in the year 2001 and suffering form 100% functional disability, the total compensation awarded was only Rs.27,67,800/-. He would further argue that, though in the decision in Benson George v. Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd and Another , (2022) 13 SCC 142 , the Apex Court has awarded Rs.10,00,000/- each on the heads pain and suffering and loss of amenities, the said judgment