The judgment clarifies how compensation should be calculated in motor vehicle accident cases, emphasizing the importance of addressing functional impairments and future medical needs when determining awards.

JUDGMENT

Among the afore two cases, MACA No.1941 of 2014 has been filed by the National Insurance Company Ltd.; while C.O.No.163 of 2021 has been filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No. 90 of 2008 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur (the 'Tribunal' for short).

2. While the Insurance Company impugns the Award because it has granted compensation to the claimant under the head “loss of earning power”, even when compensation for permanent disability and loss of income have been granted; the claimant impugns it on the ground that the amounts granted under the heads “loss of income”; “pain and suffering”; “compensation for permanent disability” and “future medical expenses” are inadequate.

3. I have heard Sri.Lal K.Joseph – learned counsel appearing for the appellant; Sri.A.N.Santhosh – learned counsel appearing for the cross objector; and Sri.M.A.Augustine – learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 – owner of the offending vehicle.

4. To state the facts compendiously, the cross objector was riding pillion on a motor cycle, when it was hit by the offending bus – owned by the 3rd respondent – he and the rider thus sustaining injuries. They thus approached the Tribunal by separate Original Petitions, his being numbered as OP(MV)No.90/2008.

5. After trial, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.10,05,900/- against a claim of Rs.21,35,000/- limited to Rs.15,00,000/-, and the cross objector impugns this; while the Insurance Company, as seen above, limits their contention to the extent that the Tribunal has erroneously awarded “loss of earning power” additionally, along with compensation under various other heads.

6. Sri.A.N.Santhosh – learned counsel appearing for the cross objector, pointed out that, as manifest from Ext.X1 – Disability Certificate, as also Exts.A17, A18 and A19 Medical Records and Medical Bills, his client had suffered very serious injuries, including brain damage, and had to undergo very complicated surgery, including a burr hole procedure, thus being now incapacitated to continue with his normal life. He argued that even though Ext.X1 – Disability Certificate, certifies his client as having a disability of only 29%, the fact remains that, functionally, he is unable to go back to his avocation of carpentry. He added that his client is now suffering from bouts of epilepsy, which is evident from the additional documents produced on record of this case, along with IA.No.1/2022, invoking Order XLI Rule 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC); and therefore, that the compensation awarded to him ought to have been much higher than what has been granted.

7. Sri.A.N.Santhosh, thereafter, argued that the notional income adopted for his client by the Tribunal – namely Rs.5,000/- – is too low, because, going by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court inAnilkumar and others v. M.K.Aiyappa and Another [ (2013) 10 SCC 705 ], it has been declared that even in the case where a skilled worker admits to a lower income, the Court is expected to take the just figure modulated by the attended circumstances. He argued that therefore, even though his client averred before the Tribunal that he was only earning Rs.5,000/-, the fact remains that, as perAnil Kumar (supra), it ought to have taken at least Rs.6,000/-. He then submitted that since his client is now suffering from great amount of disability, which is a continuing one – thus being incapacitated from even making a proper livelihood – at least 40% future prospects ought to have been added to his income, which has now been denied by the Tribunal. He relied upon various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Another [(2011)1 SCC 343] in substantiation. He concluded his submissions, saying that loss of income also ought to have been, therefore, proportionately increased; while the compensation awarded for “pain and suffering” of a mere Rs.1,50,000/- is extremely low and inadequate.

8. In response, Sri.Lal K.Joseph – learned cou