Court emphasizes adherence to compensatory norms, allowing partial appeal to appropriately adjust injury compensation while affirming the negligence of the third party.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the second respondent insurer in OP(MV) No.1559 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, challenging the enhancement of compensation. The respondent herein was the claimant before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 09.10.2012 at about

05.15 p.m., while the claimant was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-05/Q-5396 through Kumarakom – Kaippuzhamuttu public road, another motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-36C-4257 ridden by the third respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked down the claimant, whereby he sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹6,57,000/-, which is limited to ₹5,00,000/-.

3. The first, second and third respondents were the owner, insurer and the driver of the offending vehicle respectively. Though the first and third respondent entered appearance, no written statement was filed. The second respondent - insurer filed a written statement, admitting the insurance policy, disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. They contended that the third respondent was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A12 & Ext.X1 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, found that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the third respondent and awarded a sum of ₹12,32,550/-, as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs against the second respondent being the insurer. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded, the second respondent/insurance company has come up in appeal.

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

5. The learned counsel for the insurance company challenges the enhancement mainly under the following heads:

I. Notional Income The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that, for the purpose of awarding compensation under the head permanent disability, the tribunal had taken the entire income of the claimant, which was ₹39,000/-, who was a Senior Accountant, in District Co-

operative Bank, Kottayam.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/

claimant, on the other hand, submitted that he was on loss of pay for almost more than 100 days but he is continuing in job even after the accident. Admittedly there was no loss of job other than the loss of salary for 100 days. Considering the afore facts, going by the judgment of this court in Raju Sebastian v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd [2021 (5) KHC 662] , I that 50% of the salary alone is to be taken for awarding compensation under the head permanent disability, the claimant being a permanent employee. Thus, following the judgment in Raju Sebastian (Supra) the income of the claimant is fixed at ₹19,500/- (39,000 x 50/100) for awarding compensation under the head permanent disability.

II. Permanent disability Since the notional income of a permanent employee is taken as per Raju Sebastian (supra), the multiplier is to be adopted is 9, taking the age of retirement. Since the monthly income has been re-fixed at ₹19,500/-, following the judgments in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662(SC)] and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], the claimant will be entitled to get a total compensation of ₹3,08,529/- (19,500 x 12 x 14.65% x 9) towards permanent disability. The tribunal had awarded an amount of ₹9,59,900/- under the afore head. Thus, there will be a deduction of ₹6,51,371/- under the head of loss of permanent disability.

III. Pain and sufferings & L