Compensation for permanent disability in motor accident cases should reflect the severity of injuries and their impact on the victim's life, with courts rejecting baseless arguments against insurance liability.

JUDGMENT

These two appeals have been preferred from the award passed in OP(MV)No.775/2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda.

2. MACA No.3159/2016 is an appeal preferred by the claimant, whereas the MACA No.2103/2016 is an appeal preferred by the Insurance Company. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in this appeal as the claimant and respondents as in the O.P.

3. Claimant filed the OP seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act , from R1 to R3, stating that on 01.06.2011 at 5.00 pm, while she was travelling in an autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-8/G 6686 driven by the 1^st respondent and when the autorickshaw reached Palaprakunnu- Konathukunnu Road, the autorickshaw fell into a dip, and as a result of which she sustained serious injuries. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of R1, who was the driver of the autorickshaw. R2 is the RC owner of the said autorickshaw and R3 is the Insurance Company.

4. Though R1 entered appearance before the tribunal, no written statement was filed. R2 remained absent and he was set exparte.

5. R3 filed written statement admitting the existence of a valid insurance coverage for the autorickshaw bearing Reg. No.KL-8/G 6686. But, it was contended that R1 had no badge and therefore, R3 is not liable to indemnify the owner. It was also contended that the amount claimed under various heads are exorbitant.

6. After trial, the learned Tribunal passed an award granting a sum of Rs.2,09,500/- along with interest at 8% per annum and cost. The claimant who is the appellant in MACA No.3159/2016 would contend that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is meager and inadequate and it is not a just compensation.

7. Per contra, the 3^rd respondent/insurance company, who is the appellant in MACA No.2103/2016 would contend that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under all heads are excessive. Further, it was contended that the 1^st respondent had no badge to drive the autorickshaw there was violation of policy conditions and therefore insurance company is not liable to indemnify the RC owner.

8. In view of the rival contentions, at first, let us see whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal needs any interference by this Court.

9. Admittedly, at the time of the accident, claimant was a minor aged 13 years and she was a student. The medical records produced by the claimant would show that she sustained the following injuries.

1. swelling (L) forehead

2.(L)facial contusion

3.(L) zygomatic bone fracture 4.(R) Humerus fracture shaft

5.(L) optic nerve injury 6.Absent vision(L) eye

10. Medical records would reveal that she had undergone treatment at hospital as an inpatient for the injuries sustained in the accident. Medical records would further reveal that she was admitted in the hospital for removal of the implant. Ext.A5 and A6 disability certificates issued by the doctors would show that she sustained 11.12% whole body disability and 25% visual disability. PW2, the doctor opined that the claimant has the following difficulties.

1. Limitation and extension due to partial ankylosis of (R) elbow.

2.Weakness of flexion and extension of (R) elbow.

3.Weakness of flexion of (R) shoulder

4.Tenderness at fracture site of (R) humerus.

5. Paresthesia of (R) forearm dorsum

6. Limitation of flexion of (L) temporomandibular joint 11. It was also noted by the doctor that she has difficulty in lifting or carrying he