The court affirmed the importance of accurately assessing compensation based on the victim's condition, future earning potential, and the nature of injuries sustained.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.195 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents 1 and 3 before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 20.11.2009, while the claimant was riding a motorcycle, a car bearing Reg.No.KL-01/AC-4300 driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit on the motorcycle and he fell on the road. Thus he sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming compensation of ₹44,38,000/-.

3. The first respondent/owner and the second respondent/driver of the offending vehicle filed a written statement contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant himself. The third respondent/insurer filed a written statement, denying the existence of valid policy and disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. It was also contended that the claimant had contributed to the accident. Before the tribunal, Pws 1 to 3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A26 documents were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹16,92,522/- with interest at 7.5% per annum as compensation under various heads against the 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 and the learned standing counsel 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 the appellant was a Mechanical Engineer at the time of accident, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹6,000/- as the monthly income. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on Ext.A16 series to show that he was an Engineering graduate. On a perusal of Ext.A16 document, it is evident that he has passed engineering degree with first class in May 2009 and the accident occurred on 20.11.2009. Considering the afore facts, I find it appropriate to re-fix the income at ₹14,000/-.

Continuous disability :- Since the appellant/claimant aged 21 years, was found to be 60% disabled, I find it appropriate to add 40% future prospects to the income fixed and the amount will be ₹19,600/- for awarding compensation under the head disability. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Anoop Maheshwari v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. [2025 KHC 7480] and submitted that the percentage of disability need not be taken as assessed by the Medical Board, and that if the claimant is capable of carrying on his business with prosthetic assistance, the functional disability can be fixed at 50%. Here, the tribunal has taken the disability of the appellant at 60%. There is no appeal filed by the insurance company challenging the fixation of the functional disability. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere with the same. Following the judgments in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], the compensation payable under this head is re-calculated thus: ₹25,40,160/- ( 19600 x 12 x 18 x 60/100). Since the tribunal has awarded an amount of ₹7,77,600/-, there will be an additional amount of ₹17,62,560/- under the head continuous disability.

Pain and suffering :- As directed by this Court on

05.02.2026, the appellant appeared in person before this Court. This Court interacted with him, and he explained the manner in which he is presently using the prosthesis and the difficulties faced by him in doing so. On seeing his leg, it was noticed that the muscle below the knee appeared to be loose, which makes it difficult for him to effectively use the prosthes