Adequate compensation must consider assessed disability and loss of amenities as per judicial precedents.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.247 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. The respondent herein is the 2^nd respondent before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimant is that on 01.12.2012, while he was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KL-07/BG-605, driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner. The motorcycle hit a pedestrian and as a result of the accident, the claimant also fell down and sustained grievous injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹14,79,000/- limited to ₹10,00,000/-.

3. The first respondent/owner cum driver offending vehicle and remained ex parte before the tribunal. The second respondent- insurance company filed a written statement admitting the insurance policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A8 and Ext.C1 were marked. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a compensation of ₹6,13,750/- under different heads with interest @9% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the 2^nd respondent being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal.

4. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer.

5. The appellant has filed this appeal challenging compensation under the following heads:-

Notional income :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal had taken an amount of ₹10,000/- as the monthly income of the deceased. The accident occured in the year 2012 and I do not find any reason to interfere with the income fixed by the tribunal. Permanent disability:- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Ext.C1 disability was issued by the Medical Board of Medical College Hospital, Kottayam wherein, the permanent disability was assessed as 23%. However, the tribunal has reduced the percentage of disability to 12%. In Ext.C1 certificate, the total disability assessed is 23%, and it is stated that he is having Neurological issues as well as surgical issues. The injuries noted include memory impairment and post-traumatic epilepsy which has to be treated as a whole-body disability. Accordingly, I find that the functional disability assessed as per Ext.C1 has to be taken and the functional disability is refixed at 23%. Following the judgments of the apex court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)] and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], the compensation payable under the head is recalculated thus: ₹2,48,400/- (10,000 x 12 x 9 x 23%) as the total compensation payable towards loss of dependency. The tribunal has awarded an amount of ₹1,29,600/- under the head loss of dependency. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹1,18,800/-

under the afore head.

Loss of amenities :- Though an amount of ₹1,00,000/-

was claimed, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹15,000/- towards loss of amenities. Considering the loss of enjoyment in life, and having 23% disability, I find it appropriate to award a total amount of ₹40,000/- under the head loss of amenities. Since the tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹15,000/- under the afore head, there will be an additional amount of ₹25,000/- under the head loss of amenities.

6. Though the appellant claimed enhancement of compensation under the other heads, on a perusal of the records available, I am not inclined to interfere with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads since it appears to be just and r