Enhanced compensation must reflect just and reasonable assessments of damages based on injuries and disabilities sustained.

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.551 of

2010 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimant was that on 10.08.2009, while he was pillion riding on a scooter bearing Reg.No.KL-8-Y-4158 ridden by the third respondent, the scooter collided with a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-8-AM-6731 ridden by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, whereby he sustained serious injuries. He approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹65,00,000/-.

3. The first respondent, who was the owner-cum-rider of the motorcycle, remained ex parte before the tribunal. Respondents 2 and 3, who are the owner and driver of the scooter respectively, appeared before the tribunal. The fourth respondent, who is the insurer of both vehicles, filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for both vehicles, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A18, C1, C2, B1 & X1 series 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 rider of the motorcycle and awarded a sum of ₹15,94,100/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the fourth respondent being the insurer. 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. Notional income - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the appellant notionally at ₹5,000/-, which is on the lower side. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236] , for an accident that occurred in 2009, the monthly income of a coolie is fixed at ₹7,000/- and seeks for an enhancement of the income fixed. Accordingly, in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), I deem it appropriate to refix the monthly income of the appellant at ₹7,000/-.

5.2. Permanent disability - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that after the accident, the appellant was not able to do anything of his own. It is pointed out that the tribunal also recorded in the impugned award that the appellant is not in a position to do any work including daily routine and is totally in a vegetative condition and cannot even move without others’ help. However, while assessing compensation, the tribunal fixed the percentage of disability as 83%, which cannot be sustained. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. Taking into consideration the serious condition of the appellant, and also, the fact that he is in a vegetative condition, I am inclined to refix the percentage of permanent disability of the appellant at 100%.

5.2.1. The appellant was 45 years old at the time of the accident. Hence, following the judgment inNational Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662(SC)], 25% future prospects can be added to the income now refixed. Thus, the income would be arrived at ₹8,750/- (7000 + 1750). It is seen that the tribunal adopted “13” as the multiplier. Since the appellant was aged only 45 years at the time of the a