Court must ensure adequate compensation reflecting the actual damages and injuries sustained, adjusting assessments to align with evidence and legal precedents.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner in OP(MV) No.266/2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur 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 30.01.2018

2. The case of the petitioner is that on 30.01.2018 at about 1.00 p.m., while he was riding the motor cycle bearing No.KL-7/R-8166 along the Poyya – Parapuram public road and when reached near Pooppathy junction, a car bearing Reg.No.KL-64-B-6978, driven by the 1^st 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-cum-driver of the offending car bearing Reg.No.KL-64/B-6978 was arrayed as the 1^st respondent, whereas, the insurer was arrayed as the 2^nd respondent.

4. The 2^nd respondent contested the petition and a written statement mainly disputing the quantum of compensation claimed, despite admitting 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 A8. 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 1^st respondent, and being the insurer, the 2^nd respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The compensation was quantified at Rs.3,73,800/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till 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. 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 learned 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.10,000/-. In the petition, it is averred that the petitioner was mechannic by profession, earning a monthly income of Rs.20,000/- 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 2018. Therefore having regard to the year of the accident and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramachandrappa v.Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236] , the tribunal ought have assessed the monthly i