The court determined that the insurance company's exoneration was unsustainable, holding it liable for additional compensation to the claimant despite the rider's lack of a valid license and intoxication.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.1196 of

2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 07.10.2012 at about 05.00 pm, while the claimant was traveling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle, another motorcycle 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 ₹40,81,000/- limited to ₹30,00,000/-.

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. It was further submitted that the 1^st respondent had no driving license to ride the motorcycle and was under the influence of alcohol. Before the tribunal, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A25 and Ext.X1 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹31,82,600/- limited to ₹30,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum as compensation under various heads against respondents 1 and 2. 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. Though notice was served to respondents 1 and 2, they chose not to appear before this Court.

5. As directed by this Court, the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority has filed a report dated 23.02.2026, after visiting the appellant. In the report it is stated that the claimant is able to sit and walk only with the help of a bystander. From the report, it is also evident that he is bedridden and can carry out his day-to-day activities only with the assistance of a bystander. The Secretary, DLSA has also produced photographs of the claimant.

6. 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 ₹15,000/- was claimed, the tribunal had taken only ₹10,000/- as the income of the injured, who was a barber-cum-beautician. On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the income fixed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.

Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the same.

Permanent disability/loss of earning power:- As per Ext.X1 disability certificate, the percentage of disability was assessed at 85%, and the tribunal has accepted the same. As per the report filed by the Secretary District Legal Services Authority the claimant’s earning capacity is nil and he can sit and walk only with the help of a bystander. Hence, considering the report of the Secretary DLSA, as well as the present condition of the appellant, I find it appropriate to fix the functional disability of the appellant at 100%. Since the claimant was aged 30 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 40% of the notional income towards future prospects, the amount would be arrived at ₹14,000/- (10,000 + 10,000 x 40%) 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 compensation payable toward