The compensation for permanent disability must reflect both immediate and future economic losses while ensuring restoration to the victim's pre-accident position.

1. The petitioner in O.P.(MV) No. 1072 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda filed this appeal challenging the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal under various heads.

2. According to the claim petitioner, on 08/04/2011, at about 10.30 a.m., while he was riding a motorcycle through Vellikulangara - Aloor road, jeep driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner caused to hit the motorcycle and thereby, he fell down and sustained serious injuries. The 2nd respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle and 3rd respondent is the insurer.

3. Before the Tribunal, PW1 examined and Exhibits A1 to A19 were marked from the side of the petitioner and no evidence adduced from the side of the respondents. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident occurred because of the negligence on the part of the 1st respondent and that respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.14,82,685/- to the petitioner.

4. Heard Sri.T.K. Koshy, the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. Alias M. Cherian, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri. Lal K. Joseph, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent insurance company.

5. According to appellant, at the time of the accident, he was aged 27 years and working as driver - cum - clerk in KSFE on daily wage basis and earning Rs.9,000/- per month. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that Exhibit A7 letter dated 22/07/2011 from Kerala Public Service Commission would show that the appellant was advised for recruitment as Forest Guard on the scale of pay of Rs.10,480/- - 18,300/- in the Forest Department and because of the injury sustained in the accident, he could not join for duty as Forest Guard and subsequently, he applied for change of category because of the disability and later, he was appointed as LD clerk in the Forest Department. It is argued that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the above circumstances, while fixing the notional income of the appellant as Rs.9,000/- per month.

6. The appellant filed I.A. No. 2 of 2024 to receive Annexures A1 to A7 series and B1 to B5 series as additional evidence in appeal. According to the appellant, as a result of the accident, he sustained clavicle fracture, crush degloved (Rt) foot with multiple fractures and type III A Open fracture BB (R) leg and he underwent below knee amputation of right leg and he had to spend huge amounts towards treatment and fixation of prosthetic leg. Annexures A1 to A7 series are invoices issued from Saji's Rehabilitation Centre, Thrissur in connection with the purchase of prosthetic leg and its parts for the period from 02/12/2015 to 08/12/2018. Invoices from Endolite India Limited, Ernakulam for the purchase of prosthesis and its parts for the period from 29/10/2018 to 11/05/2023 are produced as Annexure B1 to B5 series. Considering the circumstances stated in the affidavit, I am satisfied that the said documents are relevant for deciding the just compensation towards medical expenses and therefore, the same can be admitted as additional evidence in appeal. Therefore, I.A. No. 2 of 2024 is allowed and Annexures A1 to A7 series are marked as Exhibits A20 to 26 and Annexures B1 to B5 series are marked as A27 to 31.

7. I.A. No. 1 of 2025 is filed by the appellant for receiving the documents produced as Annexures D to I. It is stated that subsequent to Exhibit A7 advice memo, he received Annexure D appointment order for the post of Forest Guard in the scale of pay of Rs.10,480/- - 18,300/-; but, he could not join the post