Court determined compensation enhancement based on actual income, injuries sustained, and future prospects.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No. 1975 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, 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 25.04.2015.

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

On 25.04.2015, at about 11.00 a.m., while the petitioner was travelling as a pillion rider in a motorcycle bearing registration No. KL-39-E-3325, driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner along the Munnar–Koviloor road and reached at Mattupetty, the said motorcycle collided with a goods autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-06-E-3554, driven by the 4^th respondent in a rash and negligent manner. Due to the impact of the collision, the petitioner sustained serious injuries.

3. The owner and driver of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-39-E-3325 were arrayed as the 1^st and 2^nd respondents, respectively, whereas the owner and driver of the goods autorickshaw bearing registration No. KL-06-E-3554 were arrayed as the 3^rd and 4^th respondents, respectively. Both the vehicles were insured with the 5^th respondent. The respondent Nos.1 to 4 were set exparte. The 5^th respondent contested the petition and filed a written statement mainly disputing the quantum of compensation claimed, despite admitting insurance coverage for both the vehicles involved in the accident. Petitioner's evidence consists of Exts. A1 to A11. No evidence, whatsoever, was produced from the side of the respondents.

4. After trial, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-39-E-3325 by the 2^nd respondent, and being the insurer, the 5^th respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The compensation was quantified at Rs.4,29,300/- 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.

5. I heard learned counsel appearing for both sides.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under various heads is too meager and not sufficient to compensate the actual loss and damages incurred by the petitioner due to the accident. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent, the insurance company, would submit that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under each and every head is just, fair, reasonable, and adequate, and therefore the impugned award warrants no interference.

7. 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. 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/-. As evident from the records, the petitioner was a B.Com. (Model II) Computer Applications student of KMM College of Arts and Science, Thrikkakara, at the time of the accident. Considering the year of the accident and his promising future job prospects, I am of the view that the monthly income of the petitioner can reasonably be fixed at Rs.11,000/-.

8. It was mainly relying on the disability certificate issued by the medical board, the tribunal took 3.5% of permanent disability for the purpose of determining compensation under the head of permanent disability. I am also of the view that the percentage of permanent dis