The court emphasized the proper calculation of compensation based on assessed income, loss of amenities, and functional disability, allowing for enhanced relief.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.785 of

2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondent herein was the 3^rd respondent before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 26.03.2010 at about 11.30 pm, while the claimant was travelling in a motorcycle, another motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-13-R-8875 ridden by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the claimant. As a result of the accident, he had sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming compensation of ₹4,00,000/-.

3. The first respondent/rider and the second respondent/owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte before the tribunal. The 3^rd respondent/insurer filed a written statement admitting the policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed and denying liability. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A21 and Ext.C1 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹3,97,400/- with interest at 9% per annum as compensation under various heads against the 3^rd respondent/insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal.

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

5. The learned counsel for the appellant claims enhancement mainly under the following heads:-

Notional income:- The learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that the claimant was an employee in a Co- operative Society in Kannur and was drawing salary of ₹6,746/- per month but the tribunal fixed the salary at ₹3,000/- only. In view of the judgment in Raju Sebastian v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [ (2021) 6 KLT 136 ], I find that 50% of the income can be taken for assessing compensation for a permanent employee. Following the judgment in Raju Sebastian (supra), since the salary of the appellant, a permanent employee in a co-operative society, was ₹6,746/-, I find it appropriate to fix the monthly income at ₹3,373/-

rounded to ₹3,500/-.

Loss of amenities:- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though an amount of ₹50,000/- was claimed, the tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹20,000/- under the head loss of amenities. Considering the age of the appellant as well as the loss of enjoyment in life, I find that a total amount of ₹40,000/- is to be granted towards loss of amenities. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹20,000/- under the afore head.

Permanent disability/loss of earning power:- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as per Ext.C1 disability certificate, the medical board has assessed the disability of the appellant as 25%. However, the tribunal has reduced the percentage of disability to 16% while assessing compensation. The learned counsel for the appellant, relying on the judgment of the apex court in Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar [2011 (1) KLT 620 SC] and this Court in Manikantan G. v. K.Janardhanan Nair [2021(5) KHC 305], submits that the tribunal ought to have referred the appellant to a Medical Board for further examination if there was any doubt regarding the percentage of disability. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and deem it appropriate to fix 25% as the functional disability, as assessed in Ext.C1 disability certificate, for the purpose of calculating compensation. Since there is no appeal by the respondent/insurance company, I adopt the same multiplier adopted by the tribunal. Following the judgments in National Insurance Co