The court emphasized the need for adequate compensation reflecting permanent disability and income loss in motor accident claims.

Judgment

The petitioner filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 3 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, seeking compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- for the injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on

04.08.2014 at about 7.00 a.m..

2.According to the petitioner, while he was riding his motorcycle near Atomic Scientist Housing on the Kunnathur–Anupuram Road, a lorry bearing Registration No. TN-20-AP-5040, driven in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction, hit the petitioner’s motorcycle. Due to the impact, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries all over the body. The first and third respondents are the owners of the lorry, and the second respondent is the insurer, and therefore they are liable to pay compensation.

3.The first and third respondents remained absent and were set ex parte on 16.07.2015. The second respondent Insurance Company filed a counter statement, denying the manner of accident, negligence of the driver, involvement of the vehicle, injuries sustained, age, income, treatment, and disability of the petitioner. The insurer also put the petitioner to strict proof of all allegations and sought permission to raise all defences available under the Motor Vehicles Act.

4.After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,94,000/- towards compensation. Aggrieved over the same, the claimant filed this appeal for enhancement.

5.The appellant sustained compound Grade III B fracture of both bones of the right leg and medial malleolus fracture, for which he underwent two surgeries and was treated as an inpatient from 04.08.2014 to 13.08.2014. The Medical Board assessed permanent disability at 20%. The appellant had incurred medical expenses of Rs.1,81,610/-, and the original medical bills were handed over to the Insurance Company during Pre-Lok Adalat settlement talks. However, the Insurance Company misplaced the original bills. Despite this, the learned Tribunal rejected the xerox copies of the bills and failed to consider that the documents were lost while in the custody of the Insurance Company. The Tribunal also failed to properly appreciate that the appellant was working as a JCB operator, a job requiring full physical fitness. Due to the injuries and resulting limping and shortening of limb, the appellant has suffered difficulty in performing his work. Therefore, the multiplier method ought to have been applied. Further, the Tribunal granted very low amounts under pain and suffering, transportation, extra nourishment and attender charges, and failed to award compensation under the head of loss of amenities. The Tribunal also wrongly calculated loss of income for only three months at Rs.9,000/- per month, whereas the appellant was earning Rs.15,000/- per month and required at least nine months to recover. Thus, the total compensation of Rs.1,94,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate, unjust and not commensurate with the injuries sustained, and therefore requires enhancement by this Hon’ble Court.

6.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent would submit that this is a very reasonable award and does not warrant a reconsideration. The compensation amount claimed is excessive.

7.The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,94,000/-, which is grossly inadequate considering the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant. The appellant sustained Compound Grade III B fracture of both bones of the right leg along with medial malleolus fracture, and underwent two surgeries on 04.08.2014 and 09.08.2014. The Medical Board assessed permanent disability at 20%. The Tribu