The court established that compensation for personal injury should reflect the victim's actual suffering and necessary future expenses, adhering to prior court rulings for fair compensation calculation.

JUDGMENT

In a horrific accident which occurred on 12.12.2004, the motor cycle in which the appellant was travelling, was collided with the offending vehicle, driven in a rash and negligent manner. The appellant sustained serious injuries, including to his vertebrae, spinal code and brain; and the aftermath of the same, has left him in a vegetative state, being fully bed-ridden and paralyzed. He, represented through his father, thus filed OP(MV) No.1221/2005 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short), seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.19,51,000/-, limited to Rs.15,00,000/-; but which has been allowed only to an extent of Rs.12,03,415/-. He assails the quantum of the compensation as being exiguous and woefully inadequate.

2. Sri.R.Rajasekharan Pillai – learned counsel for the appellant, argued that, when the learned Tribunal itself has found that his client was ‘lying like a dead body’, without any capacity to move on his own, or to take care of even his basic needs, the compensation awarded to him is much lower than what is eligible to him. He argued that the learned Tribunal has, unfortunately, not adhered to the ratio of various judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court in this regard, including Ramchandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [ (2011) 13 SCC 236 ]; Rajani v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. [2022 (5) KLT Online 1012]; Kajal V. Jagdish Chand and Others [MANU/SC/0126/20] (Civil Appeal No.735/2020 arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.15504/2019) and Jithendran v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Another [ 2021 KHC 6653 ). He thus prayed that this Appeal be allowed, granting just and fair compensation to his client.

3. In response, Sri.Sebastian Varghese – learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company, argued that, even though the condition of the appellant is not contested - which fact is discernible from Ext.A15-Disability Certificate issued by the General Hospital, Pathanamthitta, to the effect that he is 100% permanently disabled - the compensation awarded is adequate;

and thus prayed that this Appeal be dismissed.

4. I have considered the afore rival contentions on the touchstone of the evidence on record, which I have analyzed very carefully.

5. As the afore narrative would render it luculent, the factum of the appellant having been reduced to a vegetative state and forced to live an assisted life is without contest. The learned Tribunal has adopted the notional income of the appellant to be Rs.2,500/-, finding that there is no cogent evidence to prove his income otherwise; but, while doing so, it omitted to note the postulations in Ramachandrappa (supra), which mandates that even in the case of a person whose income is unascertainable, or who was working as a ‘Coolie’, in the year 2004 – when the accident occurred - the minimum to be reckoned as the notional income is Rs.4,500/-. Further, in Rajani (supra), the Honourable Supreme Court has gone on to say that, in the case of a person who is engaged in technical avocation, a more robust view ought to be taken.

6. In the case at hand, Exts.A18 to A20 certificates would clearly establish that the appellant was working as a Plumber prior to the accident and his condition, thereafter, is graphically discernible from Ext.A21 photograph, which indubitably establishes that he is totally in a vegetative state.

7. Therefore, the notional income to be adopted by the Tribunal, ought to have been guided by the afore two judgments; and I, therefore, propose to take it as Rs.5,500/-, which is a mere Rs.1,000/- more than what has been authorised by Ramachandrappa (supra), in the case of a ‘Coolie’. No doubt, 40% future prospects also will have to be added to this, as per National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [ 2017 (4) KLT 662 ]; and the multiplier to be adopted is ‘17’ as per Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another [ 2010 (2)