The court emphasized the need for expert opinions in disability assessment and the distinction between physical disability percentage and actual loss of earning capacity.

JUDGMENT

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) has been filed by the claim petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.292/2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 25/10/2019. The sole respondent herein is the third respondent in the petition. In this appeal, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition.

2. According to the claim petitioner, on 17/05/2014, at about 05:30 p.m., while he was walking through the side of Kadappakkada Chinnakkada N.H. Road and when he reached near Upasana Hospital, Kadappakkada, motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-02/Y-783 ridden by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries. An amount of ₹10,00,000/- was claimed as compensation under various heads.

3. The first respondent/owner and the second respondent/rider filed joint written statement admitting the policy. It was also contended that the amount claimed was excessive.

4. The third respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the policy. It was also contended that the amount claimed was exorbitant.

5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A8 were marked on the side of the claim petitioner. No documentary evidence was adduced by the respondents.

6. The Tribunal on consideration of the documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the second respondent/rider of the offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹3,56,600/- together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the claim petitioner has come up in appeal.

7. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court.

8. Heard both sides.

9. The award of compensation by the Tribunal under the following heads are challenged by the claim petitioner - Notional income It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that the latter, a 44 year old timber merchant was earning ₹10,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal fixed the notional income at ₹7,500/- which is quite low even going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. , (2011) 13 SCC 236

9.1. Though the allegation was that he was a timber merchant, there is no evidence adduced to substantiate the same. Therefore, going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa (Supra), I find that the notional income can be fixed at ₹9,500/- per month.

Percentage of disability

10. The learned counsel for the claim petitioner relying on the judgment dated 10/2/2025 inPrakash Chand Sharma v. Rambabu Saini inSLP(C)No.3066 of 2024 and Thresiamma Sebastian v. Dr.Renu Swamidas , 2024(5) KHC 520 submitted that when a Medical Board as per Ext.A7 has fixed the disability at 9%, the Tribunal was totally unjustified in scaling down the disability to 7% without giving any reasons. Therefore, he submits that Ext.A7 issued by the Medical Board has to be accepted as such and the finding could not have been interfered with by the Tribunal without examining the doctor(s) who issued the same. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that the Tribunal has every power to fix the functional disability taking into account the disabilities suffered by the claimant and therefore, there is no infirmity committed by the Tribunal calling