The court established that improper assessment of income and disability warrants compensation enhancement in personal injury claims.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 12^th day of January, 2026 The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.324 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur 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 19.02.2018.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:-

On 19.02.2018 at about 8:45 a.m., while the petitioner was riding a scooter bearing Registration No.KL-34/B-8186 through the Vypin-Munambam road from North to South a bus bearing Registration No.KL-42/D-5836 driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit on the scooter driven by the petitioner. Due to the impact of hit, the petitioner sustained severe injuries.

3. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle were arrayed as 1^st and 2^nd respondents respectively, whereas the insurer was arrayed as the 3^rd respondent. The 1^st and 2^nd respondents were set ex parte. The 3^rd respondent entered appearance and filed written statement mainly disputing the quantum of compensation claimed despite admitting insurance coverage of the vehicle involved in the accident.

4. During trial, the documents produced from the side of the petitioner were marked as Exhibits A1 to A8. No evidence was produced from the side of the respondents.

5. After trial, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred solely occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle 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.1,57,300/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation with proportionate costs. Seeking enhancement of the said compensation awarded, the petitioner has come up with this appeal.

6. Heard learned counsel for both sides.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is too meager and is not sufficient to compensate the actual loss and damages incurred by the petitioner due to the accident. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the petitioner reasonably and consequently awarded only a meager amount as compensation under the head of permanent disability. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, the Insurance Company, would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is just, fair, reasonable and adequate and hence, no interference is warranted.

8. From the rival contentions raised, it is gatherable that the main dispute that revolves around this appeal is with respect to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, particularly under the head of permanent disability, loss of earnings and the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. A perusal of the impugned award reveals 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.10,000/-. In the petition, it was averred that the petitioner was a fish vendor at the time of the accident and he was earning a monthly income of Rs.20,000/-. However, apart from raising such a contention no documentary evidence, whatsoever, was produced from the petitioner's side to substantiate his claim regarding his occupation and income. Nevertheless, admittedly, the accident occurred in the year 2018. Therefore, having regard to the year of accident and in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Ramachandrappa V. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. /b>. [ (2011