Compensation in personal injury cases must accurately reflect the extent of disability and suffering, influenced by prior case law.

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.383 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 18/08/2018. The respondents herein are respondent 1 and additional respondent 3 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 16/09/2007 at about 09:30 p.m., while he was pillion riding on motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-02/Q-1484 and when he reached near the India Gate, car bearing registration No.DL-3/CR-1462 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, rammed his motorcycle, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries.

3. The first respondent/owner-cum-driver of the car admitted the accident, but attributing negligence on the part of the second respondent/rider of the motorcycle.

4. The second respondent/rider of the motorcycle remained ex parte.

5. The third respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the policy. The age, occupation and income of the claim petitioner were disputed.

6. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A25 were marked on the side of the claim petitioner. Exts.B1 and B2 were produced by the respondents.

7. The Tribunal on consideration of the documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the first respondent/owner-cum-driver of the offending car resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹60,12,600/- together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the claim petitioner has come up in appeal.

8. 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.

9. Heard both sides.

10. The award of compensation by the Tribunal under the following heads is challenged by the claim petitioner -

Percentage of permanent disability

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that when disability has been assessed as 80% as per Ext.A15 certificate and when it is clear that the claimant is totally bedridden and in a vegetative state pursuant to the accident, the Tribunal went wrong in fixing the functional disability at 60%. On the other hand, the functional disability ought to have been fixed as 100%. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that the functional disability fixed is reasonable and no infirmity has been committed by the Tribunal.

10.1. Ext.A15 disability certificate reads thus:

“Certified that we the members of the standing Disability Assessment Board at District Hospital, Kollam examined Sri/Smt Khan S.A. Son of/daughter of Sharafudheen aged 31 years residing at R.A.manzil, Mullanip...., Mathira (P.O.) Village Mangode Taluk Kottarakara District Kollam and found that he/she is orthopaedics/ENT/Psychiatry/Ophthalmic handicapped by Post traumatic fracture dislocation of C5, C6 with Quadriplegia partial/permanent/Temporary/Disability is 80% (word Eighty percentage) belongs to MILD/MODERATE/SEVERE/TOTAL category.” (Emphasis supplied)

The Tribunal in paragraph no.12 of the impugned Award has noticed the fact that the claim petitioner is totally bedridden and in a vegetative state after the accident, which are evident from the materials on record.