The court emphasized that victims of permanent disability are entitled to compensation that reflects loss of earnings, future prospects, and restoration of dignity, leading to an enhanced compensation of ₹26,81,000.

JUDGMENT

Claimant in OP(MV) No.485/2007 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’] has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal as claimant and respondents.

3. On 10.09.2006, while the claimant was standing on the foot path opposite to water supply office at Pongumoodu road, a Toyota Innova car bearing Reg. No. KL-01/AK/8354 driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit down the claimant. As a result of which the claimant sustained serious injuries. The first respondent is the owner-cum-driver of the car and the second respondent is its insurer.

4. By the impugned award, the Tribunal awarded a sum of ₹11,43,500/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

5. Dissatisfied with the amount awarded, the claimant has come up in appeal contending that the amount awarded is inadequate;that the notional income of ₹5,000/- per month taken for assessing the compensation is very low; that the amount awarded is not a just and reasonable compensation as mandated by law and therefore he seeks enhancement of the compensation.

6. Heard the learned counsel for both sides.

Records perused.

7. The medical records namely Exts.A5 to A8, A10 to A12, A16, A17, A22, A23 and A26 to A28 would show that the appellant had sustained type 3 fracture (R) leg, medial femoral condoyle fracture with hip dislocation and surgery was conducted on 10/10/2007 with diagnosis of dislocation (R) Hip with AVN with Malunited Acetabular fracture right side with implant in SITU. Procedure involved removal of implants present in SITU from the previous fixation followed by Acetabular reconstruction with Muller ring along with bone grafts to augment the floor. THR done with No.48/28 Acetabular cup, No.6 standard cemented femoral component and 28mm femoral head. Post operatively foot drop present, small sinus with serous discharge also present. It is in evidence that after discharge from the Medical College Hospital he continued treatment as an in patient and there after he was again treated an in patient from 25.12.2015 to 05.01.2016.

8. The specific case of the claimant is that at the time of the accident, he was working as a Manager at Amer Bin Mazood Bin, Muscat, and was earning ₹40,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal did not accept this contention and fixed his notional income at ₹5,000/- per month for the purpose of assessing the compensation.

9. To substantiate the case of the appellant/claimant that he was employed abroad at the time of the accident, he produced Exts. A13, A24 and A25, which are the resident card, bank statement and passport respectively. The Tribunal found that Exts. A13 and A25 would show that the appellant was an NRI at the time of the accident. Even then, the Tribunal held that the said documents cannot be relied upon to conclude that he was a permanent employee drawing a fixed salary as stated in the petition, and observed that the employment was only on a contract basis.

10. Though there is no evidence to show that he was drawing a salary of ₹40,000/- per month during the said period, his monthly income can reasonably be taken as ₹15,000/- instead of ₹5,000/- fixed by the Tribunal. 11. The Tribunal has awarded loss of earnings for one year at the rate of ₹5,000/- per month. This Court has taken his notional income as ₹15,000/- per month. Accordingly, an amount of 1,80,000/- is awarded under the head loss of earnings [15,000x12].

12. In a catena of decisio