The court modified the previous compensation award, emphasizing the need for accurate assessment of disability and justification of negligence in accident claims.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.476 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 09.12.2008 at about 6:30 p.m., while the claimant was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-8/P-7163 through Edakulam-Aripalam public road, another motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-45/2532 driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner came through the wrong side and hit against the claimant’s motorcycle and thereby the claimant sustained serious injuries. He approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹4,80,000/- which was limited to ₹4,50,000/-.

3. The first and second respondents being the registered owner and the driver of the offending vehicle, remained ex-parte before the tribunal. The third respondent–insurer filed a written statement before the tribunal admitting the policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. Exts.A1 to A12 and Ext.B1 were marked. PWs 1 to 3 were examined. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹1,07,930/- after deducting 30% towards contributory negligence as compensation under different heads with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs from respondent-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. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurance company. Though notice was served on additional respondents 4 to 6, they chose not to appear before this Court.

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

Loss of earnings :- The learned counsel appearing for the claimant/appellant submitted that, due to the injury, the appellant had taken 5 and a half months’ commuted leave immediately after the accident and that no compensation was awarded by the tribunal for the loss of commuted leave. The learned counsel further submitted that he could have utilised the said leave for some other purpose had the accident not occured. PW1 was examined to prove his case. PW2, the Manager of the bank where the claimant was working, was also examined, and he has stated that the appellant had taken commuted leave for 5 and a half months. A11 discharge summary does not advise any long rest. On a perusal of the deposition of PW1, it is not clear why he had taken leave for 5 and a half months. Following were the injuries sustained: (1) lacerated wound in (R) little toe, (2) bimalleolar fracture (L) dislocated, (3) fracture (R) clavicle. However, considering the fact that there was a fracture of the right clavicle and that he was working as a clerk in the bank, I deem it appropriate to award a consolidated amount of ₹30,000/- as compensation for loss of earnings. Accordingly, the appellant will be entitled to get a total compensation of ₹30,000/- towards loss of earnings.

Permanent disability :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as per Ext.A9 disability certificate, the percentage of disability was assessed as 12%. However, the tribunal has reduced the percentage of disability to 3%. On a perusal of Ext.A9 disability certificate, it is seen that the doctor has given reasons for assessing the disability as 12%. Considering the injuries sustained and the certificate issued, I find that the reasoning of the tribunal does not appear to be acceptable in view of the