The assessment of compensation is intricately tied to the accurate evaluation of permanent disability, necessitating reliance on credible medical evidence.

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed against the award passed in O.P.(MV) No.1081/2010 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palakkad. Claim petition has been filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act') for the injuries sustained by the claimant in a motor accident occurred on 13.03.2009 at about 3.15 p.m, while he was sitting on the edge of the road at Karikode, Mannam, a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL-09 V 9885 hit him resulting in grievous injuries to him. A total compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- was claimed. It is alleged that accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the first respondent.

2. Before the Tribunal, first respondent remained ex parte. The second respondent insurer did not deny the insurance coverage with respect to the offending vehicle. It is contended that there is a delay of nearly two weeks in reporting the accident to the police. The claimant was put to proof of the allegation regarding rashness and negligence on the part of the respondent, the injuries sustained and the amounts claimed.

3. Exts.A1 to A9 were marked and PW1 examined on the side of the appellant/claimant (hereinafter be referred to as 'the claimant'). There is no defence evidence.

4. The Tribunal on appreciating the evidence and the facts and circumstances found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the first respondent. A total compensation of Rs.82,140/- was awarded. The second respondent the insurer was held liable as per the contract of insurance to indemnify the insured.

5. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the claimant approached this Court in appeal on various grounds stated in the memorandum of appeal.

6. Learned Standing Counsel Sri.Mathew Jacob appeared on behalf of the second respondent/insurer. Lower court records were called for and both sides were heard.

7. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads are very low. According to him, Ext.A9 disability certificate and evidence of PW1 Doctor would prove disability of 12%. Tribunal did not award any compensation under the head of permanent disability. No amount was also awarded under the ground of deformity just above the left ankle. A just compensation was not awarded to the minor victim who had suffered 12% permanent disability. The learned counsel also relies on Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Company Limited and Another : Civil Appeal No.7139 of 2013 arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No.1676 of

2012 dated 26.08.2013.

8. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel vehemently opposed in adopting 12% permanet disability fixed in Ext.A9 and he would contend that the victim was a minor boy and the disability is assessed by PW1, who is not the doctor who treated the patient. Disability assessed is on higher side and is also not certified as whole body and hence 12% disability certified cannot be acted upon. He also requested to refer the claimant to Medical Board for determination of actual disability. He would also contend that the Tribunal rightly observed that there is every chance that the implant will be removed in future and the disability may vary as the petitioner grows up and hence the Tribunal found that it cannot be considered that there would be a permanent loss of earning power to the claimant and hence no amount was awarded under the head of permanent disability.

So, no interference is called for in that regard.

9. At the time of argument, even though the learned counsel for the insurer pressed for refering the claimant to the Medical Board for assessing the actual disability, the learned counsel for the claimant was not prepared to refer the claimant to Medical Board for assessment of disability. According to him, the doctor, who issued Ext.A9 disability certificate has been examined as PW1 and nothing could be brought out to