The court clarified the computation of compensation for permanent disability using the multiplier method, referencing precedent case law for appropriate assessments.

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.1873 of 2005 on the files of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. The case of the appellant/claimant is that on

27.11.2004, while he was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-8/M 1224, an autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-8/V 820 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle, whereby he sustained serious injuries. He approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹1,00,500/-.

3. Respondents 1 and 2, who are the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, appeared before the tribunal. The third respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A10 & B1 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of ₹59,800/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the third respondent being the insurer and recover the same from the first respondent/owner. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant claims enhancement under the following heads:

5.1. Loss of earnings - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant had to avail 47 days of long leave on medical ground, which, if not availed, could have been utilized for some other purpose, however, the tribunal has not awarded compensation towards loss of earnings. The learned Standing Counsel for the insurer submits that the tribunal considered the same in detail in paragraph 9 of the impugned award and rejected the said prayer for the reason that the appellant did not produce any document to prove loss of salary for the said period. Admittedly, the appellant availed leave on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, however, no document was produced to prove loss of salary. Nevertheless, considering the facts, I deem it appropriate to award a consolidated compensation of ₹20,000/- towards loss of salary. Accordingly, the appellant will be entitled to get ₹20,000/- as compensation under this head.

5.2. Pain and suffering - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the tribunal awarded only ₹20,000/- towards pain and suffering, which is on the lower side. Considering the injuries sustained by him and the sufferings that he had undergone, I am inclined to grant an amount of ₹25,000/- to the appellant as total compensation towards pain and suffering. Thus, the appellant will be entitled to get an additional amount of ₹5,000/- as compensation under this head.

5.3. Loss of amenities - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the tribunal awarded only ₹10,000/- towards loss of amenities, which is on the lower side. Considering the injuries sustained by the appellant and the loss of enjoyment in life, I deem it appropriate to award a total compensation of ₹15,000/- towards loss of amenities. Thus, the appellant will be entitled to get an additional amount of ₹5,000/- towards loss of amenities.

5.4. Permanent disability - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the tribunal, without adopting a multiplier method, awarded only an amount of ₹15,000/- towards permanent disability