JUDGMENT

Both these appeals arise from O.P.(MV).No.501 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda. The said claim petition was submitted by the claimant, the appellant in M.A.C.A.No.1450 of 2014, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained to him in a motor accident that occurred on 30.07.2008. According to him, the accident happened when the motorcycle he was riding was hit by a tipper lorry bearing registration No.KL-45B-3992 driven by the 2nd respondent in the claim petition. The said vehicle was owned by the 1st respondent and was insured with the 3rd respondent in the claim petition, the appellant in M.A.C.A.No.1687 of 2014. (For convenience, the parties herein are referred to based on their respective ranks in the claim petition.)

2. According to the petitioner, he was an employee in South Indian Bank at the time of the accident with a monthly income of Rs.20,000/-. He was 40 years old at the time of the accident. Consequent to the injuries sustained, he suffered permanent disablement and the same compelled the petitioner to take voluntary retirement from the bank on 29.02.2012. The claim petition was submitted in such circumstances seeking a total compensation of Rs.75,00,000/-.

3. The 3rd respondent alone contested the matter by filing a written statement, wherein they admitted the coverage of policy for the lorry. But they disputed the liability on various grounds. They disputed the negligence as well as the quantum of compensation claimed.

4. The evidence in this case consists of oral testimonies of PW1 to PW4, and as documentary evidence, Exts.A1 to A24 were marked from the side of the petitioner. Ext.B1 and B2 were marked from the side of the 3rd respondent. After the trial, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and being the insurer of the said lorry, the 3rd respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.40,31,370/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

5. M.A.C.A.No.1450 of 2014 was submitted by the appellant in such circumstances seeking enhancement of compensation, whereas M.A.C.A.No.1687 of 2014 was submitted by the 3rd respondent challenging the quantum of compensation.

6. Heard Sri. Joseph Gopuran, learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner in M.A.C.A.No.1450 of 2014 and Sri. George Cherian(Thiruvalla), learned senior counsel for the 2nd respondent.

7. The challenge raised in both these appeals is with respect to the quantum of compensation. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under various heads are on the lower side, whereas the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent would contend that the amounts are exorbitant and require reconsideration. The 1st challenge of the petitioner is with respect to the amount awarded under the head of disability. It was pointed out that the injuries sustained by the petitioner resulted in physical disablement of 85% as certified by the Doctor, who was examined as PW1. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this is a fit case in which the Tribunal ought to have taken the functional disability of the petitioner as 100%, in view of the fact that he was compelled to take voluntary retirement from his employment on 29.02.2012 since he was unable to pursue the employment. It was also the case of the petitioner that the Tribunal ought to have considered the salary which the petitioner was receiving at the time when he was compelled to avail voluntary retirement, which was Rs.34,735/-. He relies on Ext.A17 series of documents to substantiate the details of his employment including the salary, date of retirement, emoluments and other benefits he was receiving while he was in service. He also relies on Ext.A24, which contains details relating to the voluntary retirement scheme.

8. After carefully going through t