The court emphasized the necessity of adequately compensating for loss of earnings and pain in personal injury claims, adjusting amounts based on prevailing legal standards.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 30^th day of January, 2026 The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.317 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vatakara 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 19.01.2017.

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

On 19.01.2017 at about 8:45 a.m., while the petitioner was travelling on a motor cycle bearing Registration No.KL-56- N-2797 from Ezhukandy Angadi to Mankayam and when reached near Ezhukandy junction, another motor cycle bearing Registration No.KL-56-C-1444 ridden by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the motor cycle on which the petitioner was travelling and due to the impact of hit, the petitioner sustained severe injuries.

3. The owner and rider of the offending motor cycle were arrayed as 1^st and 2^nd respondents respectively, whereas the insurer was arrayed as the 3^rd respondent. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed written statements. The 3^rd respondent filed written statement mainly disputing the quantum of compensation claimed despite admitting insurance coverage of the vehicle involved in the accident.

4. During trial, the documents produced from the side of the petitioner were marked as Exhibits A1 to A7. No evidence was produced from the side of the respondents.

5. After trial, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle bearing Reg.No. KL-56-C-1444 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.1,32,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation with 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 learned counsel, the Tribunal awarded compensation under the head of loss of earnings only for a period of 5 months despite the serious nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner. He was further contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of pain and suffering as well as loss of amenities and enjoyment of life is also on the lower side considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and the complicated treatment procedures he had to undergo in connection with the fracture sustained to the facial bones. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the respondent insurance company would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under each and every head is reasonable and adequate and therefore warrants no interference by this Court.

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 no amount has been awarded towards compensation under the head of permanent disability as the petitioner failed to produce any evidence to show that he had suffered any permanent disability due to the injuries sustained in the accident. In the absence of any material to prove permanent disability, I am also not inclined to award any compensation under the said head.

9. However, while awarding compensation, the nature of injuries sustained b