Court held that the compensation awarded for injuries must be reasonable and reflective of the actual loss and suffering incurred.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 12^th day of January, 2026 The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.773 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on account of the injuries sustained by her in a motor accident that occurred on 08.06.2016.

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

On 08.06.2016 at about 6:10 a.m., while the petitioner was travelling in a car bearing Registration No.KL-35F-3297 through Ettumanoor Pala public road driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner and when the car reached near Alphonsa College, Arunapuram, the 1^st respondent abruptly turned the vehicle towards left side and thus the accident occurred and the petitioner sustained serious injuries.

3. The owner cum driver of the car was arrayed as the 1^st respondent, whereas the insurer was arrayed as the 2^nd respondent. The 2^nd respondent contested the petition and filed a written statement mainly disputing the quantum of compensation claimed, despite admitting the insurance coverage for the car involved in the accident.

4. During trial, the documents produced from the side of the petitioner were marked as Exhibits A1 to A20. From the side of the respondents no evidence whatsoever was produced.

5. After trial, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the accident occurred solely due to the negligent driving of the car by the 1^st respondent, and being the insurer, the 2^nd respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The compensation was quantified at Rs.7,40,737/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and 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 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 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. As evident from the impugned award, for the purpose of determining compensation under the head of permanent disability, the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.10,000/-. In the petition, it was contended that the petitioner is a Nursing graduate and was earning a monthly income of Rs.15,000/- at the time of accident. However, apart from raising such an averment in the petition, no evidence whatsoever, was produced from the petitioner's side to substantiate the claim regarding her occupation and income. Likewise, no documents were produced to prove her educational qualification as well. Admittedly, the accident occurred in the year 2016. Therefore, having regard to the year of accident and the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Ramachandrappa V.

Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd [ (2011) 13 SCC 236 ], the Tribunal ought to have assessed the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.10,