Compensation for accident injuries must account for all damages, including permanent disability and future prospects.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.1359 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents 1 & 2 before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 12.07.2010 at about 08.30 pm, while the claimant was riding a motorcycle bearing reg. No. KL-45- 8111, another motorcycle bearing reg. No. KL-8/U 2354, ridden by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner with excessive speed by overtaking another autorickshaw hit against the claimant's motorcycle. As a result of the accident, he had sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming compensation of ₹17,16,000/- limited to ₹12,00,000/-.

3. The first respondent/owner and the second respondent/rider 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. Before the tribunal, PWs 1 to 4 were examined and Exts.A1 to A11 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹4,95,400/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% 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 for the appellant submitted that though an amount of ₹7,500/- was claimed, the tribunal had taken only ₹3,500/- as the income of the injured, who was retired as Jr.Superintendent in lower judiciary and was also working as an advocate clerk and LIC agent. It is further submitted that, going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [ 2011 (13) SCC 236 ], the income of a Coolie, for an accident in 2010, is fixed as 7,500/- and sought for enhancement of income fixed. Following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), I find it appropriate to refix the income of the claimant as ₹7,500/-.

Permanent disability/loss of earning power:- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the original claimant had suffered 100% disability, was bedridden, and thereafter died on

09.03.2017, after a period of 6 years and 7 months and submitted that even after the tribunal finding him not to be in a normal state took the disability as only 50% and sought to consider the permanent disability as 100%. On a perusal of paragraph 7 of the award, it is evident that the tribunal has noted that the claimant who was examined as PW1, was found to be in an abnormal state, unable to provide rational responses or comprehend his surroundings, time, place, or personal circumstances nor able to care for himself. Considering the claimant’s post accident condition, I am inclined to fix the functional disability of the appellant at 100%. Since the original claimant was aged 58 at the time of the accident and had sustained 100% disability, following National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662(SC)], by adding 10% of the notional income towards future prospects, the amount would be arrived at ₹8,250/- (7,500 + 7,500 x 10%) for awarding compensation under the head permanent disability. Accordingly, following the judgments in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], the compens