The court enhanced the compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident based on a reassessment of damages awarded.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No. 1115 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the tribunal on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 28.05.2019.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:-

On 28.05.2019, at about 10. 30 a.m., while the petitioner was travelling in an ambulance bearing registration No.KL-17-T-102 through L&T Bypass road, Coimbatore, and reached near Irikur Railway Bridge, a Tempo-van bearing registration No.TN-54 -3853 driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit on the ambulance. Due to the impact of the hit, the petitioner sustained serious injuries.

3. The owner and driver of the offending tempo-van were arrayed as 1^st and 2^nd respondents respectively, whereas, the insurer was arrayed as the 3^rd respondent. The owner and driver of the ambulance were arrayed as the 4^th and 5^th respondents, respectively, and the insurer of the ambulance was arrayed as the 6^th respondent. Respondents Nos. 2, 4, and 5 were set exparte. The 3^rd respondent contested the petition by filing a written statement mainly disputing the quantum of compensation claimed, despite admitting insurance coverage for the tempo-van involved in the accident. Petitioner's evidence consists of Exts. A1 to A36. Exts.B1 and B2 were marked from the side of the respondents.

4. After trial, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tempo-van bearing registration No.TN-54-3853 by the 1^st respondent, and being the insurer, the 3^rd respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The compensation was quantified at Rs.6,66,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate costs. Seeking enhancement of the said compensation awarded, the petitioner has come up with this appeal.

5. Heard both sides.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under various heads is too meager and not sufficient to compensate the actual loss and damages incurred by the petitioner due to the accident. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent, the insurance company, would submit that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under each and every head is just, fair, reasonable, and adequate, and hence, warrants no interference.

7. From the rival contentions raised, it is gatherable that the main dispute that revolves around this appeal is with respect to the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that, for the purpose of determining compensation under the heads of permanent disability and loss of earnings, the tribunal assessed the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.12,000/- by applying the principles laid down in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236]. I find no reason to interfere with the assessment of income made by the tribunal.

8. A perusal of the award further reveals that the tribunal awarded loss of earnings only for a period of eight months. The medical records produced by the petitioner shows that he had sustained the following injuries in the accident;(a) Type II open tpe VI Schatzker fracture (Rt) proximal tibia (b) segmental comminuted fracture shaft tibia (lt) (c) 1x1 cm lacerated wound over proximal tibia (d) deformity, tenderness and swelling Rt leg (e) deformity, tenderness and swelling Lt leg. As evident from the discharge summary, the petitioner underwe