The judgment affirms that functional disability and future compensation prospects are critical in assessing damages for injury in accident cases, rejecting arbitrary reductions in disability assessments.

JUDGMENT

The appeal is preferred, being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded as per the award dated 29.07.2022 in OP(MV) No.368/2019 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-III, Kasaragode. The appellant herein was the petitioner before the Tribunal. The respondents' status is the same as in the Original Petition.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows. On 30.09.2017, at approximately 12:30 p.m., the Petitioner was involved in a road traffic accident while travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle (Registration No. KL-14J-9801) on the Movvar– Badiadkka road at Arthipallam. The accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the 1^st Respondent, who was operating a tempo van having Registration No. KL-58E-7702. The van struck the motorcycle from behind, causing the Petitioner to sustain serious injuries, including a fracture to his left leg. Due to the severity of the injuries, the Petitioner was hospitalised for 20 days (from 30.09.2017 to 19.10.2017) at Thejaswini Hospital and SSIOT, Mangalore.

3. According to the medical records provided by the Appellant, the injuries sustained are as follows::

1.Compound fracture of both bones of left leg at lower third region with protrusion of bone Fragment through the wound.

2.Abrasion over the right elbow measuring about 3 cm x 2 cm in size.

4. The Tribunal examined the contentions raised by the parties and framed specific issues regarding the cause of the accident, the nature of the injuries sustained, the entitlement to compensation, and finally quantum of compensation. Exts.A1 to A9 documents produced by the petitioner were considered, and Ext.X1 proceedings of the General Hospital, Kanjangad was also considered. The Tribunal considered issue Nos.1 and 2, whereby it concluded that the appellant sustained injury and the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Tempo Van (Registration No. KL-58E-7702).

5. The Tribunal addressed the issues of entitlement to compensation and liability concurrently. Upon deliberation, the Tribunal held that the petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of ₹4,29,593/-, carrying an interest rate of 8% per annum from the date of the petition (25.05.2019), along with proportionate costs, against the total claim of Rs.37,97,000/-, which was limited to Rs.20,00,000/- . Finding that a valid insurance policy was in effect at the time of the accident, the Tribunal directed the 2^nd Respondent Insurance Company to indemnify the owner and satisfy the award by paying the aforementioned amount to the petitioner.

6. The present appeal is preferred against the aforementioned award, primarily challenging the Tribunal’s denial of future prospects. Given that the Appellant was only 20 years old at the time of the accident, he is entitled to a 40% addition to his actual income for the calculation of loss of dependency/earning capacity, as per settled legal precedents. Furthermore, while the Medical Board, constituted under the directions of this Hon’ble Court, assessed the physical disability at 15%, it is contended that his functional disability is significantly higher. The injuries sustained have rendered the Appellant unable to walk without assistance. Considering his profession as a salesman in a jewellery showroom, which requires prolonged standing and mobility, this physical limitation constitutes a severe impediment to his employment. Consequently, the accident has resulted in a substantial loss of his future earning capacity.

7. The Appellant further contends that the Tribunal erred in its assessment of disability. While the Medical Board, constituted unde