The court enhanced the motor accident compensation from ₹7,15,186 to ₹12,35,189, acknowledging severe injuries and establishing revised income for fair assessment under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.904 of 2013 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, claiming enhancement of compensation awarded by the tribunal. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimant is that on 25.01.2013 at about 2.00 pm, while the claimant was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.KL-5K/3699 and when the motorcycle reached at Kavanattinkara bridge, a car bearing Reg.No.KL-05/AB-9245 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the claimant’s motorcycle, whereby he sustained serious injuries. The first and second respondents are the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle respectively. According to the claimant, accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent, who was the driver of the car bearing Reg.No.KL-05/AB-9245. Hence, the claimant approached the tribunal claiming compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act .

3. The 3^rd respondent/insurance company filed written statement admitting the insurance policy but denying the case of the claimant that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 2^nd respondent.

4. Before the tribunal, Exts. A1 to A12 were marked.

The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a compensation of ₹7,15,186/- under different heads with interest @9% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, claimant has preferred this appeal seeking enhanced compensation.

5. Heard the learned Counsel for the claimant and the learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent/ insurer.

6. There is no dispute over the fact that the claimant met with a motor vehicle accident on 25.01.2013, while he was riding a motorcycle. It is in evidence that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car driven by the 2^nd respondent which was owned by the 1^st respondent and insured with the 3^rd respondent.

7. The learned counsel for the claimant contended that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under all heads are meager and inadequate and are on the lower side, and it is not a just and fair compensation as mandated by law.

8. Now let us see whether the claimant is entitled to any enhanced compensation, and if so, what is the quantum.

9. The medical records would reveal that the claimant sustained cervical spine injury with quadriplegia, biocondylar and bilateral fracture of mandible and he had undergone treatment at the Indo American Hospital from 08.02.2013 to 25.03.2013. Thus the treatment records would reveal that the claimant sustained grievous injuries in the accident. 10. According to the claimant, he was a Government servant working as Livestock Inspector in Kerala Government Service and after retirement, he was doing private practice.

11. The Tribunal took his monthly income as ₹5,000/-

for the purpose of assessing compensation. He being a retired Live Stock Inspector, necessarily, his monthly income can be notionally taken as ₹9,000/- per month for the purpose of awarding just compensation. Accordingly, his monthly income is notionally taken as ₹9,000/- .

12. Having regard to the grievous nature of injuries sustained by him, loss of earning is calculated at the rate of ₹ 9,000/- for a period of 8 months. Accordingly, claimant is entitled to get ₹72,000/- (9,000 x 8) under the head loss of earnings instead of ₹20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

13. As per Ext.A12 disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, the whole body disability of the injured is 78%. His notional income is taken as ₹9,000/-. He was aged 58 at the time of accident. Hence, 10% of the income i