JUDGMENT

The appellant was the petitioner in O.P.(M.V) No.

2184/2005 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. The said claim petition was submitted by him seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 18.05.2005. According to the appellant, the accident occurred, when he was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle, the said motorcycle was hit by a container lorry bearing registration number TN-33/B-5343, driven by the first respondent. The second respondent was the registered owner and the third respondent was the insurer of the said lorry. The appellant sustained serious injuries in the accident. He was aged 21 years at the time of the accident and was working as a salesman in a bakery with a monthly income of Rs. 4,500/-. The claim petition was submitted in such circumstances.

2. The third respondent alone contested the matter by filing a written statement wherein, they admitted the coverage of policy for the said vehicle. However, they denied negligence on the part of the first respondent in driving the lorry and according to them, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle. It was also contended that the driver of the lorry was not having a valid driving licence and badge. Therefore they contended violation of policy conditions.

The quantum of compensation was also disputed by them.

3. The evidence in this case consists of Ext. A1 to A10 from the side of the appellant and the copy of the policy was marked as Ext. B1 from the side of the respondents. After the trial, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the first respondent in driving the lorry and being the insurer, the third respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. Moreover, the third respondent was granted the right to recover the compensation from the second respondent as well. This appeal is submitted by the appellant in such circumstances seeking enhancement of compensation.

4. Heard, Sri. C Harikumar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Smt. P.K Santhamma, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent.

5. The only question that arises for consideration is whether any enhancement as sought in the appeal is to be granted or not. On going through the records, I find that, in some of the heads, the compensation awarded is on the lower side and hence interference is required. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, the monthly income accepted by the Tribunal for assessment of compensation for disability was only Rs.3,000/- as against the claim of Rs.4,500/- which appears to be on the lower side. It is to be noted that the accident occurred in the year 2005. Of course, it is true that there is no proper evidence adduced to substantiate the monthly income. However, in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236], the Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to take the monthly income as Rs.4,500/- in respect of an employee, for the accident occurred in the year 2004 even in the absence of any evidence. Therefore, under no circumstances, the claim of Rs. 4,500/- for an accident occurred in the year 2005 can be treated as unreasonable. Therefore, the said amount is accepted as the monthly income.

6. The percentage of disability certified in Ext.A9 was

4% and the said percentage was reduced to 2% merely because of the reason that the Doctor was not examined. The injuries as discernible from the records are as follows:

“Lacerated wound at the bars of nose, on upper lip, contus on brain whole left side of chest, left shoulder, left upper arm,left forearm, fracture left scapular neck.”

Considering the nature of injuries, the possibility of the appellant sustaining whole body disability of 4% cannot be ruled out. It is also a well settled position of law that in the absence of any serious discrepancy in the assessment of disability, the percentage of disab