The judgment reinforces the principle that compensation must align with actual injuries and losses sustained, ensuring proper assessment of disability and resulting earnings.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner in OP(MV) No.1687/2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram 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 30.06.2014.

2. The case of the petitioner is that on 30.06.2014 at about

03.00 p.m., while he was travelling as passenger in an auto rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-21/F-7561 from Venjarammoodu to Kilimanoor and when reached near Tandram Poika junction, a car bearing Reg.No.KL-01/BB-4353, driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the auto rickshaw in which the petitioner was travelling. Due to the impact of the hit, the petitioner sustained serious injuries.

3. The registered owner and driver of the offending car bearing Reg.No.KL-01/BB-4353 and the owner of the auto rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-21/F-7561 were arrayed as the 1^st , 2^nd and 4^th respondents respectively, whereas, the insurers of the car and the auto rickshaw were arrayed as the 3^rd and 5^th respondents respectively.

4. The 3^rd and 5^th respondents contested the petition and filed separate written statements mainly disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. However, the 3^rd respondent, insurer admitted insurance coverage for the car involved in the accident.

5. During trial, the documents produced from the side of the petitioner were marked as Ext.A1 to A11. From the side of the respondents no evidence whatsoever was produced.

6. After trial, the tribunal came to a conclusion that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the car 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.7,95,350/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate costs. Dissatisfied by the said compensation awarded, the petitioner has come up with this appeal.

7. I heard Sri.Nimod A.R, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.P.K.Manoj Kumar, 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 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 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.21,200/-. It was mainly relying the income tax returns filed by the petitioner, that the tribunal entered into a finding regarding the income. I also find no reason to interfere with it.

10. In order to prove that the petitioner had suffered permanent disability due to the injuries sustained in the accident, a disability certificate issued by a doctor was produced and marked in evidence as Ext.A11. In Ext.A11, it is recorded that the petitioner had suffered a disability of 16% due to the injuries sustained in the accident. However,