Court determined that compensation for personal injury must accurately reflect the claimant's actual losses and future needs, revising amounts for disability, earnings, and medical expenses based on judicial standards.

JUDGMENT

Since these two appeals arise from the very same award dated 17.10.2014 in O.P (MV) No.500/2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, these appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment. M.A.C.A. No.218 of 2015 is filed by the 3rd respondent, insurer in the O.P challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, whereas M.A.C.A. No.1222 of 2015 is filed by the claimant in the O.P, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 27.11.2011, while the claimant was riding the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL- 40/828 along the Sahodaran Ayyappan Road, a Scorpio car bearing Reg.No.KL-07/BE 2437 driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, turned to the right without a signal and thereby the rear left portion of the car hit against the motorcycle and the claimant was thrown away and fell under the bus bearing Reg.No.KL-4S-7515 driven by the 4th respondent, whereby the tyre of the bus ran over the left leg of the claimant and sustained grievous injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹51,24,000/-.

3. The respondents 1 to 3 were the driver, owner and insurer of the Scorpio car and the respondents 4 to 6 were the driver, owner and insurer of the bus. The respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5 remained ex-parte before the tribunal. The 3^rd respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the insurance policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed and denied the liability. Exts.A1 to A30 and Ext.C1 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹16,75,308/- as compensation under different heads with interest 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs against the third respondent insurer of the offending car.

4. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company and the learned counsel for the claimants.

5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that the tribunal had awarded excessive compensation under different heads including the heads of fixation of artificial limb, disfiguration, future earnings, etc. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant on the other hand submitted that the left leg above the knee of the claimant was amputated and though Ext.C1 disability certificate reveals that the claimant was having 40% disability, he is having 100% functional disability since he was a nurse by profession, after completing his B.Sc nursing course. The learned counsel for the claimant further submitted that while awarding compensation, future prospects was also not added to the income fixed and that the compensation under the heads pain and sufferings and permanent disability were all on the lower side. In order to ascertain the present condition of the appellant/claimant, this Court on 03.11.2025 directed the claimant to appear before this Court. Thereafter, on 10.11.2025 the claimant appeared and it was found that the left leg of the appellant/claimant was amputated above the knee and that he was experiencing difficulties with his right leg as well, which bears the entire pressure. Though there is amputation above the knee, he is not in a position to use a standard prosthesis due to muscle laxity above the knee, which results in persistent pain.

6. The learned counsel for the insurer and the claimants challenged the compensation awarded under the following heads :-

Notional income :- The learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that though an amount of ₹5,500/- was claimed as the income, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹5,000/-. The learned counsel further submitted that even going by the judgment in