Proper assessment of compensation for injuries requires accurate determination of income and disability, which impacts the final award.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner in OP(MV) No.1058/2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad 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 04.02.2017.

2. The case of the petitioner is that on 04.02.2017 at about 03.15 p.m., while the petitioner was standing on the side of Velanthavalam R.T.O. check post, he was hit down by a Jeep bearing Reg.No.TN-10Q-7341, driven by the ^1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner. Due to the impact of the hit, the petitioner sustained serious injuries.

3. The owner -cum- driver of the offending jeep was arrayed as the 1^st respondent , whereas, the insurer was arrayed as the 2^rd respondent.

4. The 2^rd respondent contested the petition by written statement mainly disputing the quantum of compensation claimed, despite admitting insurance coverage for the car involved in the accident.

5. During trial, the documents produced from the side of the petitioner were marked as Ext.A1 to A11. 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 jeep by the 1^st respondent, and being the insurer, the 2^rd respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The compensation was quantified at Rs.2,41,822/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit and proportionate costs. Dissatisfied by the said compensation awarded, the petitioner has come up with this appeal.

7. I heard Sri.Baby Mathew, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Lal K. Joseph, 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. From a perusal of the award, it is evident that, for the purpose of determining the compensation under the head of permanent disability and loss of earnings, the tribunal assessed the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.8,000/-. In the petition, it was contended that the petitioner was working as a driver 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 contention regarding his occupation and income. Nevertheless, admittedly the accident occurred in the year 2017. Therefore, having regard to the year of accident and in view of the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236], the tribunal ought have assessed the monthly income of the petitioner Rs.11,000/-, notionally.

10. As evident from the impugned award, in order to verify whether t