The assessment of compensation for personal injury must reflect the claimant's actual circumstances, including full disability and attendant needs, ensuring fair and just relief.

JUDGMENT

The appellant, a seventeen(17) year old boy claiming that he was a coolie worker, had approached the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara, claiming compensation for an accident which occurred on 20.07.2015 at 8.45 a.m. He was a pillion rider on a bike bearing Registration No.KL-19-E-3823 from Kattiluvila to Vattavila through the side road and when the bike reached at Vattavila AG Church, a car bearing Registration No.KL 04-J-4134 hit behind the bike and as a result of the impact the claimant fell on the road and sustained serious injury. Immediately after the accident the appellant was brought to the General Hospital, Neyyattinkara and was referred to Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. He was admitted there and a major surgery was conducted. He claimed that he was earning a monthly income of Rs.15,000/- per month and as a result of the injury he sustained permanent disability. In order to prove the claim, Exts.A1 to A48 documents were marked on his side. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the insurance company. During the course of the trial of the claim petition, the claimant – appellant was brought before the tribunal in a stretcher and his physical condition was ascertained by the tribunal before proceeding to award the compensation. The tribunal found that the claim of the appellant that he was earning a monthly income of Rs.15,000/- was not supported by any evidence and therefore proceeded to fix the income notionally at Rs.7,000/- per month. In so far as the disability is concerned, the tribunal found that the Medical Board has assessed the disability at 80% and therefore the same was taken into consideration and proceeded to grant the following compensation:

” Aggrieved by the insufficiency of the compensation, the claimant has approached this Court.

2. Heard Sri.Rinu S. Aswan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Smt.Sajitha S. Dharan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurance company.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant raised the following submission: (a) Notional income fixed by the tribunal is incorrect.

(b) No attendant charges has been granted by the tribunal despite being satisfied that the appellant is in a paraplegic stage.

(c) Sufficient compensation has not been granted for future treatment.

(d) The tribunal ought to have reckoned 100% disability considering the peculiar state of the claimant and despite having satisfied by examining the appellant in person, the tribunal proceeded to fix only 80% of the disability.

In respect of the non-conventional heads also, the claimant – appellant is entitled for a reasonable compensation.

4. On the other hand, Smt.Sajitha S. Dharan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that the award passed by the tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court.

5. I have considered the rival submissions raised across the Bar.

6. In Sanjaykumar Vs. Ashok kumar and another [(2014) 5 SCC 330] , the Honourable Apex Court has held that if the claim is not exorbitant and in tune with the ground realities, the courts and tribunals ought to have accepted the same. In