The judgment establishes the criteria for determining compensation in personal injury cases, emphasizing fair assessment of permanent disability and income loss.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 12^th day of January, 2026 The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.465 of 2019 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 her in a motor accident that occurred on 28.03.2019.

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

On 28.03.2019 at about 5:30 p.m. while the petitioner was travelling as a pillion rider on the scooter bearing Registration No.KL-42/J-1290 through the Paravur-Aluva road from West to East and when reached at the place of occurrence, a bus bearing Registration No.KL-16/8325, driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit the scooter in which the petitioner was on the pillion. Due to the impact of the hit, the petitioner sustained severe injuries.

3. The owner and driver of the offending bus 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 filed joint written statement. The 3^rd respondent also filed a written statement mainly disputing the quantum of compensation claimed despite admitting insurance coverage of the vehicle involved in the accident.

4. During trial, from the side of the petitioners Exhibits A1 to A12 were marked. 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 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.4,10,600/- with interest at the rate of 9% 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, 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 compensation under the head of permanent disability and loss of earnings, the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.12,000/-. In the petition, it was contended that the petitioner was a tailor by profession at the time of the accident and was earning a monthly income of Rs.25,000/-. However, apart from raising such a contention in the petition no evidence, whatsoever, was produced from the petitioner's side to substantiate her claim regarding her occupation and income. It was mainly taking note of the said fact that the Tribunal having regard to the year of accident and applying the principles in Ramachandrappa V. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. /b>. [(2011) 13 SCC