The court affirmed the appellant's entitlement to compensation, considering the established negligence of the driver and the substantial functional disability suffered.

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 07^th day of January, 2025 The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.)No.1121/2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam is the appellant herein. The 3^rd respondent in the O.P. is the respondent herein. The petitioner filed the above O.P. under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident that occurred on 27.03.2013.

2. According to the petitioner, on 27.03.2013 at about 09.30 p.m, while he was walking along Arakuzha - Muvattupuzha road,, a car bearing Registration No.KL-02/X 7648 driven by the 2^nd respondent hit him down. As a result of which, he sustained serious injuries. The 1^st respondent is the owner, the 2^nd respondent is the driver and 3^rd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. According to him, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, he filed the OP claiming a compensation of Rs.6,87,000/-.

3. The 1^st and 2^nd respondents entered appearance, but did not file any written statement. The 3^rd respondent/insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy and disputing the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. It was further contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner.

4. The evidence in the case consists of the documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A20 and Ext.C1. No evidence was adduced by the respondents.

5. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,05,580/-.

6. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner preferred this appeal.

7. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following:

Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.

8. Heard Sri.K.Janardhanan, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, and Sri.P.K.Manoj Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

9. The Point: In this case the accident and valid policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. Though in the written statement the 3^rd respondent has contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner, at the time of arguments such a contention was not taken. The petitioner has produced Ext.A3, copy of the charge sheet involved in the crime registered against the driver of the offending vehicle, in respect to the above accident. In the light of the above charge sheet, negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle stands proved. Therefore, the 3^rd respondent, being the insurer, is liable to indemnify the compensation, which is liable to be awarded against the owner of the offending vehicle.

10. The petitioner was aged 52 years on the date of the accident, on

27.03.2013. According to the petitioner, he was a carpenter by profession, earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Since he could not prove the income claimed in the OP, the Tribunal fixed his income at Rs.7,000/-. In the light of a dictum laid down in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manger , Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236] , the notional income of a coolie is liable to be fixed at Rs.9,000/- during 2013. Considsering the fact that, the petitioner is a carpenter by profession, his notional income during the year 2013 is fixed at Rs.10,000/-.

11. In the accident the petitioner sustained comminuted fracture to posterior wall of left acetabulam, injuries to maxillary with central dislocation of femoral head. He was treated as inpatient from 28.03.2013 to 11.05. 2013. Open reduction and internal fixation were done. Luxated teeth and injuries to eyes were also noticed. Ext.C1 -disability certificate issued by the medical board, showing that he has a permanent disability of 17%. Howeve