Compensation for motor accident injuries must consider actual loss, future prospects, and suffering, ensuring just and adequate reparation.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner in OP(MV) No.1626/2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta 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 03.11.2015.

2. The case of the petitioner is that on 03.11.2015 at about

05.30 a.m., while he was driving an auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KL-26/A-8647 through the Vayala - Chenganoor public road and when reached near Aramanapadi, a car bearing Reg.No.KL-26/C-7374, driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit the autorickshaw driven 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-26/C-7374 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 written statement mainly disputing the quantum of compensation claimed, despite admitting insurance coverage for the bus involved in the accident.

5. During trial, the documents produced from the side of the petitioner were marked as Ext.A1 to A11, and 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 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.10,41,594/- with interest at the rate of 9% 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.T.K.Biju, 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 is not at all sufficient to compensate the actual loss and damages incurred by the petitioner due to the accident. According to the learned counsel, due to the serious injuries sustained in the accident, the entire life of the petitioner was adversely affected and he is in a pathetic condition now. It is further submitted that by undermining all these aspects, the tribunal awarded only a meagre amount as compensation and therefore interference by this court is warranted under all heads. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent insurance company submitted that a reasonable and just amount has already been awarded by the tribunal as compensation under various heads and no interference is called for in this appeal.

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.8,500/-. While considering the question whether any interference is required with respect to the assessment of income made by the tribunal, it is pertinent to note that in the petition, it is averred that the petitioner was an auto rickshaw driver by profession, earning a monthly income of Rs.20,000/- at the time of the accident. In order to substantiate his occupation, the petitioner produced