The court can enhance compensation in personal injury claims by reassessing income and disability claims.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner in OP(MV) No.1409/2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-IV, Palakkad has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the tribunal on account of the injuries sustained by her in a motor accident that occurred on 20.01.2017.

2. The case of the petitioner is that on 20.01.2017 at about 9.00 p.m., while she was walking through the side of a public road road at Kanjiramkunnam, a motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL-09/G-5767, ridden by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit her. Due to the impact of the hit, the petitioner sustained serious injuries.

3. The owner-cum-rider of the offending motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL-09/G-5767 were arrayed as the 1^st respondent whereas, the insurer was arrayed as the 2^nd respondent.

4. The 1^st and 2^nd respondents contested the petition by filing written statements mainly disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. However, the 2^nd respondent, insurer, admitted insurance coverage for the motor cycle involved in the accident.

5. During trial, the documents produced from the side of the petitioner were marked as Ext.A1 to A18. The document produced from the side of the respondent 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 riding of the motor cycle 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.1,71,940/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit and proportionate costs. Dissatisfied by the said compensation awarded, the petitioner has come up with this appeal.

7. I heard Sri.Baby Mathew, 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 earning, the tribunal assessed the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.7,000/-. In the petition, it was specifically averred that at the time of accident the petitioner was working as construction worker, earning a monthly income of Rs.15,000/- . In order to substantiate her claims, regarding her occupation and income, the petitioner had produced an identity card issued by the the Building and other construction workers welfare board, Thiruvananthapuram and the same was marked as Ext.A15. However, without taking note of the same, the tribunal assessed the monthly income of the petitioner, notionally, at a meagre amount of Rs.7,000/- . I am of the considered view that by producing the identity c