Compensation for injuries must reflect accurate income assessment and account for sustained disability.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner in OP(MV) No.1193/2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor 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 10.06.2013

2. The case of the petitioner is that on 10.06.2013 at about 07.30 p.m., while he was travelling as a pillion rider in a motor cycle bearing No.KL-41-B-7331 through the Kalady- Angamaly MC road and when reached near Marothichodu, a pick up van bearing Reg.No.KL-33/D-4701, 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 sustained serious injuries.

3. The registered owner and driver of the offending pick up Van bearing Reg.No.KL-33/D-4701 were arrayed as the 1^st and 2^nd respondents respectively, whereas, the insurer was arrayed as the 3^rd respondent. The 1^st respondent remained absent and was set exparte.

4. The 2^nd and 3^rd respondents contested the petition by filing written statements mainly disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. However, the 3^rd respondent, insurer admitted insurance coverage for the pickup van involved in the accident.

5. During trial, the documents produced from the side of the petitioner were marked as Ext.A1 to A11 and document produced from the side of the respondents was marked as Ext.B1.

6. After trial, the tribunal came to a conclusion that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the pickup van driven 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.5,95,257/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation and proportionate costs. Dissatisfied by the said compensation awarded, the petitioner has come up with this appeal. 7. I heard Sri.A.N.Santhosh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.P.Muraleedharan, learned standing counsel for the respondent insurance company.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under various heads is too meagre and will not commensurate with the actual loss and damages incurred by the petitioner due to the accident. According to the counsel, the tribunal grossly erred in assessing the income of the petitioner reasonably and consequently awarded only a meagre amount as compensation under the head of permanent disability. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent insurance company contended that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under each and every head is just, fair, reasonable and adequate and hence warrants no interference.

9. From the rival contentions raised, it is discernible 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 the compensation under the head of permanent disability and loss of earnings the tribunal assessed the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.6,000/-. In the petition, it is averred that the petitioner was a coolie labourer earning a monthly income of Rs.25,000/- at the time of the accident . However, apart from raising such a contention in the petition, no evidence, whatsoever, has been produced from the side of the petitioner to substantiate his claims regarding his occupation and income. Nevertheless, admittedly, the accident occurred in the year 2013. Therefore, having regard to the year of the accident and the principles laid down in the decisio