JUDGMENT

The claimant in OP(MV) No. 429/2018 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam has come up with this appeal dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal.

2. The facts in brief are follows:- The 1st respondent, being a rider of the motorbike bearing Reg.No. KL-51/J-6132 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner through Kulappully - Cheruthuruthy public road and, when reached the premises of Hymas Lodge, hit on the motorcycle bearing Registration No. KL-51/H-186 which was driven by the claimant in OP(MV) No.426/2018. The claimant/appellant was a pillion rider sustained grievous injuries. The insurance company appeared and contested the claim and contended that there was no negligence on the part of the 1st respondent as alleged in the petition. The insurance policy in respect of the vehicle was accepted. Both claims in OP(MV).Nos.426/2018 and 429/2018 were jointly tried. Exts.A1 to A17 were marked on the side of the claimant. PW1 to PW3 were examined on the side of the claimant. Ext.B1 was the copy of the policy produced on the side of the Insurance Company. In respect of the appellant’s claim, PW2, Dr. Vinesh Senen was examined to prove Ext.A2 disability certificate. The Tribunal based on the evidence on record, especially with regard to Ext.A2 disability certificate, proceeded to fix the percentage of disability of the claimant/appellant herein at 39.5% and accordingly granted the compensation as follows:-

12 Compensation 200000 0

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid grant, the claimant in OP(MV)No.429/2018 has approached this Court in the present appeal.

4. I have heard Sri. Sheji P Abraham, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and Adv.Latha Susan Cherian, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the appellant was a mason by profession had lost his avocation because of the serious injuries that occurred in the accident. He relied on Ext.A2 disability certificate to prove the nature of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The learned counsel further pointed out that though the Tribunal took note of the fact that the injuries were serious, it proceeded to fix the notional income of the appellant at Rs.10,000/-, whereas the appellant being a skilled worker was entitled to have the notional income fixed more than what was now fixed by the Tribunal. He also pointed out that no amount of compensation was awarded for future prospects and therefore prayed a suitable enhancement may be granted in the present appeal. He relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anthony v. Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C [2020 (3) KLT OnLine 1042 (SC)] and also the judgment of the learned Single Bench of this Court in Sarath P.D. v Prasanth [2024 KHC 613] to contend for the proposition that even in the injury cases, the court has got sufÏcient power to grant compensation by taking into consideration of the future prospects.

6. On a contrary, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, Adv.Latha Susan Cherian vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant. She relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar [AIR 2020 SC 4424] and also the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sidram v. United India Insurance Company Limited & Ors [2022 (6) KLT SN 59]. With specific