JUDGMENT

(Dated: 5th August, 2022)

The 3rd respondent in O.P.(M.V.) No.744 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta is the appellant (the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the petition). The appeal is filed being aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded to the respondent/claimant as excessive.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: On 14.03.2013 at about 03.00 p.m., while the petitioner was walking from east to west along the Thiruvalla - Kozhenchery public road and when he reached the place Theepany, a tanker lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-03/L-3973 driven by the first respondent from west to east in a rash and negligent manner, knocked down the petitioner and the front left wheel of the lorry ran over the petitioner’s left leg causing severe injuries. The petitioner was admitted to Pushpagiri Medical College Hospital and his left leg was amputated above the knee. He underwent three surgeries. The accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent is the registered owner and the 3rd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. The respondents are therefore jointly and severally liable for the compensation to the petitioner.

3. 1st and 2nd respondents remained ex-parte. The 3rd respondent/insurance company alone filed a written statement contending as follows: The petition is not maintainable, the entire case is fabricated and the records prepared by the police are not admissible, the accident occurred as a result of the careless and negligent manner in which the petitioner tried to cross the road. The policy of the offending vehicle/tanker lorry was admitted. The injury sustained is minor and the amount claimed is exorbitant. The Tribunal relying on Exts.A1 to A12 and the oral evidence of PW1 awarded compensation of Rs.20,41,130/- against the claim of Rs.67,76,000/- with 9% interest from the date of the original petition. The appeal is filed being aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

4. Adv.George Cherian, learned senior counsel appearing for the insurance company submits that as per the disability certificate produced by the petitioner, it is only 60%, whereas the Tribunal assessed the permanent functional disability as 80% without any reasoning. Moreover, an addition of 30% for future prospects is also added to the monthly income. The respondent/claimant filed a Cross Objection No.75 of 2019, claiming enhancement of compensation against the award of the Tribunal. He contended that the petitioner was a mason by profession and he produced Ext.A11 certificate issued by the Chairperson of Pulimkunnu Grama Panchayath Welfare Standing Committee to prove that he was engaged as a mason by them. The Tribunal has taken the monthly notional income as Rs.10,000/- per month. Going by the decision reported in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236], for an accident which happened in the year 2013, the monthly notional income to be taken for a coolie worker is Rs.9,000/-, but Ext.A11 issued by the Chairperson of the Pulimkunnu Grama Panchayath Welfare Standing Committee shows that he was engaged as a mason. A mason is a skilled worker when compared to a coolie. There is no error in taking Rs.10,000/- as monthly notional income for a mason. Relying on the decision reported in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] the future prospects for a self-employed person between the age group of 40-50 can only be 25%, but the Tribunal has taken 30% additional as future prospects to be added to the monthly income which is against the principles laid by the Apex Court in the decision cited supra. Hence the addition of 30% is to be reduced to 25%. As far as the percentage of disability is concerned, the Medical Board attached to the General Hospital, Alappuzha, has issued Ext.A10 disability certificate showing that the permanent disability