The court emphasized the principles for determining notional income and functional disability, allowing appeal to enhance compensation based on established judicial precedents.

J U D G M E N T

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.644 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 26/10/2019. The sole respondent herein is the 5^th respondent/insurer 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 02/04/2015 at about 07:30 a.m., while he was riding motorcycle through Perumpazhuthoor-Aruvippuram road and when he reached near Aruvippuram junction, truck bearing registration No.KL-03-A-7767 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, knocked him down, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries.

3. The first respondent/registered owner of the truck, the second respondent/driver, the third respondent/insured and the fourth respondent/registered owner of the motorcycle remained ex parte.

4. The fifth respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the policy but denying the liability. The age, occupation and monthly income were disputed. 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 A11 were marked on the side of the claim petitioner. Exts.B1 to B3 were marked on the side of 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/driver of the offending truck resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹4,33,000/- together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation along 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 is challenged by the claim petitioner-

Notional income It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that the latter a coolie, was earning ₹15,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal fixed the notional income at ₹7,000/- which is quite low going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Co. Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236

9.1. Though there are no materials to support the claim regarding the income, going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa (Supra) the notional income of the claim petitioner can be fixed as ₹10,000/-

Percentage of disability

10. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that in the light of Ext.A8 as per which the permanent disability has been assessed as 13%, the Tribunal was not justified in scaling down the disability and fixing the functional disability as 10%. According to him, no reasons have been given by the Tribunal for scaling down the disability percentage and hence it must be fixed as per the assessment that has been made in Ext.A8. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the fifth respondent/insurer that the certificate has been issued by a single doctor, who was never examined to prove the same and therefore, the Tribunal was right in not completely relying on Ext.A8 and fixing the disability and so, there is no infirmity committed by the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court.

10.1. The argument that there is no reasoning given by the Tribunal in fixing the functional disability as 10