Court upheld the tribunal's assessment of compensation but further enhanced it due to pain and suffering.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners in O.P.(MV) No.1969/2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam, have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded on account of the death of one Ajayakumar, who died in a motor accident that occurred on

30.06.2017.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

3. On 30.06.2017, at 9 a.m., while Ajayakumar was travelling as a rider on the motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-24-J-5734 through Nedumonkavu -Nallila public road, and when reached in front of Gurudeva Central School, Kudikodu, a scooter bearing registration No.KL 24 J 376, ridden by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle on which Ajayakumar was travelling. Due to the impact of the hit, Ajayakumar was thrown onto the road, causing him severe injuries. Immediately after the accident, although the injured Ajayakumar was taken to a hospital, he succumbed to the injuries three days after the accident, while undergoing treatment.

4. The driver of the offending scooter was arrayed as the 2nd respondent, and the owner was arrayed as the 1st respondent in the original petition. The insurer of the said scooter was arrayed as 3^rd respondent. The 3^rd respondent, Insurance Company, filed written statement mainly disputing the quantum of compensation claimed, despite admitting the insurance coverage for the scooter involved in the accident.

5. During the trial, Exts.A1 to A12 were exhibited and marked from the side of the petitioners. However, no evidence whatsoever was adduced from the side of the 3rd respondent Insurance Company.

6. After trial, the tribunal came to a conclusion that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent riding of the scooter bearing Reg.No.KL 24 J 376 by the 2nd respondent and being the insurer, the 3^rd respondent was held liable to pay the amount of compensation awarded. The quantum of compensation was quantified at Rs.30,12,340/-, with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation with proportionate costs. Mainly challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the present appeal has been preferred by the petitioners.

7. Heard Sri. R. Rajesh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, and Smt. K.C. Beena, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under various heads is too meager and is not sufficient to compensate the actual loss sustained by the bereaved family members of the deceased. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent insurance company would submit that already a reasonable amount has been awarded by the tribunal under each and every head, and hence the impugned award requires no interference.

9. From the rival contentions raised, it is gatherable that the main dispute that revolves around this appeal is with respect to the quantum of the compensation awarded by the tribunal. As evident from the records, the deceased was aged 44 at the time of the accident. In the petition, it is averred that he was a painter by profession and was earning a monthly income of Rs.20,000/-. In order to prove that the deceased was a painter by profession, a passbook issued by the Kerala Building and Construction Welfare Board is seen produced and marked in evidence as Ext.A12. By producing Ext.A12, the petitioners succeeded in proving that the deceased was a member of the welfare fund of building construction workers. It was mainly relying on the said document, the tribunal entered into a conclusion that the deceased was a painter by profession and assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.20,000/-. I find no reason to interfe