Compensation claims must reflect just and reasonable standards, considering permanent disability and future prospects.

JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.68 of

2008 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha.

The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. The case of the appellant/claimant is that on

15.04.2007, while he was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-7-D- 5698, an autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-38/2531 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle, whereby he sustained grievous injuries. He approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹7,00,000/-.

3. Respondents 1 and 2, driver and owner of the offending vehicle respectively, appeared before the tribunal. The third respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Exts.A1 to A13 and B1 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of ₹14,21,710/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 8.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the third respondent being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant claims enhancement under the following heads:

5.1. Notional income - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was a painter and was earning ₹10,000/- per month, however, the tribunal has fixed the monthly income notionally at ₹4,000/-, which is on the lower side. The appellant was aged 21 years at the time of the accident that occurred in 2007. Even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236] , the monthly income of the appellant ought to have been fixed at ₹6,000/-.No evidence is adduced to prove the income or avocation. Accordingly, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, I deem it appropriate to refix the monthly income of the appellant at ₹6,000/-.

5.2. Permanent disability - In Ext.A13 disability certificate issued by the Medical Board of the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, the whole body disability of the appellant is assessed as 90%. During the pendency of this appeal, as directed by this Court on 02.02.2018, the appellant was produced before this Court on 14.02.2018, who was in a wheelchair, and this Court found that the disability of the appellant can be taken as 100%. Thereafter, on 15.07.2025, in order to ascertain the present status of the appellant, this Court directed the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Thodupuzha, to visit the appellant and ascertain his present condition with the assistance of an approved/government medical practitioner and to submit a report. Accordingly, the Secretary, DLSA, visited the appellant with the assistance of an Assistant Surgeon of Family Health Centre at Kudayathoor and filed a report along with a certified Medical Examination Report of the doctor, who assisted the Secretary, DLSA. The relevant portion of the report filed by the Secretary, DLSA, reads as follows:

“...At the time of examination by the doctor, Shinoop was conscious and oriented to person and place. He is unable to move but can sit on a chair with support. He requires continuous assistance for ordinary pursuits. He is suffering from tremor of the left upper and lower limbs. Though he attemp