The court clarified the standards for determining compensation in motor accident claims, emphasizing the need for proper evidence concerning income and injury severity.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No. 1682 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta, 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 27.09.2015.

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

On 27.09.2015, at about 03.30 p.m., while the petitioner was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-26-F-3671 through bypass road at Adoor, and when reached near a place called ‘Nellimoottipadi’, a tanker lorry bearing registration No.TN-52-B-8879, driven by the 2^nd respondent, in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle ridden by the petitioner. Due to the impact of the hit, the petitioner was thrown onto the road and sustained serious injuries.

3. The owner and driver of the offending tanker lorry bearing registration No.TN-52-B-8879 were arrayed as the 1^st and 2^nd respondents, respectively, whereas the insurer was arrayed as the 3^rd respondent. The 3^rd respondent contested the petition and filed a written statement mainly disputing the quantum of compensation claimed, despite admitting insurance coverage for the tanker lorry involved in the accident.

4. During trial, the documents produced from the side of the petitioner were marked as Exts.A1 to A13. No evidence whatsoever was produced from the side of the respondent. 5. After the trial, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing registration No.TN-52-B-8879 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.2,17,670/- with interest at the rate of 9% 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 the learned counsel appearing for both sides.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under various heads is too meagre, and such an amount was awarded without considering the gravity and nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the accident. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the respondent, insurance company, would submit that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under various heads is just, fair, reasonable and adequate, and therefore the impugned award warrants no interference.

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 and loss of earnings, the tribunal assessed the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.7,000/-. In the petition, it was averred that the petitioner was working as an Office Staff at Dreams Career Guidance Centre, Adoor and was earning a monthly income of Rs.18,000/- at the time of the accident. However, apart from making such an averment in the petition, no evidence whatsoever was produced from the side of the petitioner to substantiate his contentions regarding his occupation and income. Nevertheless, admittedly, the accident occurred in the year 2015. Therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble 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. 10,000/- notionally.

9. In order to prove that the petitioner suffered permanent disability due to the injuries sustained in the accident, a disability certificate issued by a medical board was produced and