Compensation for injuries must consider future prospects, permanent disability, and loss of amenities, adjusting amounts awarded by the Tribunal accordingly.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.)No. 1673/2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Kottayam is the appellant herein. The respondents in the O.P. are the respondents 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 09.09.2013. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner died on 03.09.2020 and his legal representatives are impleaded as additional appellants 2 and 3.

2. According to the petitioner, on 09.09.2013 at about 10 a.m., while he was travelling in an auto rickshaw bearing Reg. No. KL-05/AE 9247, from Kottayam to Kumarakom road, a car bearing Reg. No. KL-05/AG 6768 driven by the 1^st respondent dashed against his auto- rickshaw and he sustained serious injuries. The 1^st respondent is the driver, the 2^nd respondent is the owner 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. 22,19,000/-.

3. The 1^st and 2^nd respondents entered appearance and filed their joint 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 driver of the auto-rickshaw.

4. The evidence in the case consists of the documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A9 and X1. Exts. B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the respondents.

5. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 21,38,000/-.

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.A. Hashim, the learned Counsel for the appellant, and Sri. Latheesh Sebastian, learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

9. The Point : In this case sthe 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 driver of the auto-rickshaw, at the time of arguments such a contention was not taken. The petitioner has produced Ext.A2, copy of the charge sheet involved in the crime registered against the driver of the offending vehicle, in respect of 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 pay the compensation, which is liable to be awarded against the owner of the offending vehicle.

10. The petitioner was aged 40 years on the date of the accident, on 09.09.2013. According to the petitioner, he was an autorikshaw driver cum owner, earning Rs.12,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal fixed his income at Rs.5,000/-. Since he could not prove the income claimed in the OP, 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] , his notional income is liable to be fixed at Rs. 9,000/-.

11. In the accident the petitioner sustained very serious injuries.

They include: (1) ossified posterior longitudinal ligament from C3 to C7 vertebrae with cord contusin. (2) sensory loss below T3 Grad 0 powers all four limbs [