The court reaffirmed the necessity for adequate compensation reflecting the injuries' impact on future earning capacity, adjusting the total awarded compensation in line with established legal principles.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner in OP(MV) No.246/2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the tribunal on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 12.09.2016.

2. The case of the petitioner is that on 12.09.2016 at about 12.45 p.m., while the petitioner was travelling as a pillion rider in a motor cycle bearing No.KL-40/B-6619 through the Aluva - Munnar road from west to east direction at Mudikkarai, a bus bearing Reg.No.KL-44/3067, driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle ridden by the petitioner. Due to the impact of the hit, the petitioner sustained serious injuries.

3. The registered owner and driver of the offending Bus bearing Reg.No.KL-44/3067 were arrayed as the 1^st and 2^nd respondents respectively, whereas, the insurer was arrayed as the 3^rd respondent.

4. The 3^rd respondent contested the petition by written statement mainly disputing the quantum of compensation claimed, despite admitting insurance coverage for the bus involved in the accident.

5. During trial, the documents produced from the side of the petitioner were marked as Ext.A1 to A20. From the side of the respondents no evidence whatsoever has been produced. 6. After trial, the tribunal came to a conclusion that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the 2^nd respondent, and being the insurer, the 3^rd respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The compensation was quantified at Rs.12,22,154/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till date of realisation and proportionate costs. Dissatisfied by the said compensation awarded, the petitioner has come up with this appeal.

7. I heard Sri.A.N.Santhosh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.N.S.Najeeb, learned standing counsel for the respondent insurance company.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under various heads is too meagre and will not commensurate with the actual loss and damages incurred by the petitioner due to the accident. According to the counsel, the tribunal grossly erred in assessing the income of the petitioner reasonably and consequently awarded only a meagre amount as compensation under the head of permanent disability. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent insurance company submitted that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under each and every head is just, fair, reasonable and adequate and hence warrants no interference.

9. From the rival contentions raised, it is discernible that the main dispute that revolves around this appeal is with respect to the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal under various heads, particularly, under the head of permanent disability, loss of earnings, pain and sufferings and loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. As evident from the impugned award for the purpose of determining the compensation under the head of permanent disability, the tribunal assessed the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.10,500/-. In the petition, it is averred that the petitioner was painter by profession, earning a monthly income of Rs.15,000/- at the time of the accident . However, apart from raising such a contention in the petition, no documentary evidence, whatsoever, has been produced from the side of the petitioner to substantiate his claims regarding his occupation and income. Nevertheless, admittedly, the accident occurred in the year 2016. It was mainly taken note of the year of the accident and the principles laid down in the decision of the Hon’ble Apex