The insurer's liability in compensatory claims is based on assessed disabilities and relevant judicial precedents, with strict adherence to timely deposit requirements.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the third respondent/insurer in O.P.

(MV) No.831 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta, challenging the quantum of compensation. The respondent herein is the claimant before the tribunal.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: On 04.12.2010, at about 1.00 p.m., while the claimant was travelling in a jeep bearing registration No.KL-28-7789 through Kanalpadi - Dharmagirimandiram, the jeep abruptly hit against a compound wall of the Pentecost Church and turned down on the road due to the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent and as a result, the claimant sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹17,36,000/-.

3. The first and second respondents/the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle remained ex parte before the tribunal respectively. The third respondent – insurer filed a written statement, admitting the insurance policy and disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A15 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, found that accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the second respondent and found that the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimant and awarded a sum of ₹10,68,584/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Challenging the quantum of compensation, the third respondent - insurance company has come up in appeal.

4. Heard the learned standing counsel for the appellant/insurance company and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant.

5. The learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant – insurer challenges the enhancement mainly under the following heads:

I. Loss of earning power The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that they are highly aggrieved by the fixation of functional disability by the tribunal. The learned standing counsel further submitted that, as per Ext. A8 disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board, General Hospital, Pathanamthitta, the permanent disability was assessed only at 22%. However, the tribunal fixed the functional disability at 40% without proper reasons.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant, submitted that valid reasons have been stated in paragraph 7 of the award by the tribunal while fixing the functional disability at 40%. On going through paragraph 7 of the award, I find that the reasons stated by the tribunal in fixing the functional disability at 40% are satisfactory. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the same.

However, the tribunal added 50% future prospects to the income so fixed. Since the claimant is not a permanent employee, following the judgment in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)], the tribunal ought to have added only 40% towards future prospects. By adding 40% of the future prospects towards the monthly income fixed, it would be ₹11,200/- (8,000 x 40% + 8,000) for awarding compensation under the head, loss of earning power. Hence, following the judgments of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], the total compensation payable under the afore head is recalculated thus: ₹8,06,400/- (11,200 x 12 x 15 x 40/100). The tribunal had granted an amount of ₹8,64,000/- under the said head. Thus, there will be a deduction o