The court ruled that compensation should ensure fair, reasonable, and adequate redress for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, departing from the Tribunal's initial assessment.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 30^th day of January, 2026 The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.640 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam 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 24.05.2017.

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

On 24.05.2017 at about 05:15 p.m., while the petitioner was riding a scooter bearing Registration No.KL-52/H-8254, along with his brother Sidharth R., on the pillion, through Kunnamkulam-Pattambi public road, a car bearing Registration No.KL-46/C-2627 driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the scooter ridden by the the petitioner and due to the impact of hit, the petitioner sustained severe injuries.

3. The owner and driver of the car were arrayed as 1st and 2^nd respondents respectively, whereas the insurer was arrayed as the 3^rd respondent. The 1^st and 2^nd respondents remained ex parte. 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 A13 and PW1 was examined as the witness. 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 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.92,940/- with interest at the rate of 9% 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 erred in assessing the income of the petitioner reasonably and consequently awarded only a meager amount as compensation under the head of permanent disability. Per contra, the learned 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, for the purpose of determining compensation under the head of permanent disability, and loss of earnings the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.8,000/-. In the petition, it was averred that the petitioner was working as a Tuition Teacher and was earning a monthly income of Rs.10,000/- at the time of accident. Apart from raising such an averment in the petition, no evidence whatsoever has been produced from the petitioner's side to substantiate his contentions regarding occupation and income. Nevertheless, admittedly the accident occurred in the year 2017. Therefore, having regard to the year of accident and the principles laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in Ramachandrappa V. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Com