The court emphasized the assessment of compensation in personal injury cases should balance strict evidentiary principles with a benevolent framework in favor of the injured party.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner in OP(MV) No.1728/2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the tribunal on account of the injuries sustained by her in a motor accident that occurred on 25.02.2017.

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

On 25.02.2017 at about 12.30 p.m., while the petitioner was travelling in an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-01/BN-7723 along Karipoor - Nedumangad public road, and when reached near Kallingal junction, the driver of the autorickshaw turned the vehicle abruptly in a rash and negligent manner, and as a result, the vehicle overturned, and the petitioner sustained severe injuries.

3. The owner of the autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-01/BN-7723 was arrayed as the 1st respondent, whereas the insurer was arrayed as the 2nd respondent.

4. The 1st respondent was set ex-parte. The 2nd respondent filed a written statement mainly disputing the quantum of compensation claimed, despite admitting the insurance coverage for the motorcycle involved in the accident.

5. During the trial, the documents produced from the side of the petitioner were marked as Exts.A1 to A20. No evidence was produced from the side of the respondents.

6. After the trial, the tribunal came to a conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-01/BN-7723, and being the insurer, the 2nd respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed at Rs.2,67,240/- with interest at 8% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation. Seeking enhancement of the said compensation awarded, the petitioner has come up with this appeal.

7. Heard Sri. A.R. Nimod, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and Sri. Linto Francis, the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent, insurance company.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant urged that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under various heads is too meager and is not sufficient to compensate the actual loss and damages suffered by the petitioner due to the accident. According to the counsel, the tribunal grossly erred in assessing the income of the petitioner reasonably and consequently awarded a nominal amount as compensation under the head of permanent disability. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent insurance company submitted that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under each and every head is reasonable and adequate and hence warrants no interference.

9. A perusal of the award reveals that for the purpose of determining compensation under the head of permanent disability, the tribunal assessed the income of the petitioner at Rs.8,000/-. The income claimed by the petitioner in the claim petition is Rs.12,000/-. In the petition, it is specifically averred that the petitioner was a housewife and, apart from that, she was doing the work of making coconut ladles from coconut shells. However, the tribunal entered into a finding that the contention of the petitioner regarding her occupation and income stands not proved by convincing evidence, and the tribunal assessed the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.8,000/- notionally. I am cognizant of the fact that no evidence has been adduced from the side of the petitioner to prove that, apart from discharging her duties as a housewife, the petitioner was engaged in making coconut ladles and earning a monthly income of Rs.12,000/-. However, it cannot go unnoticed that in the FIS, whic