1. Appeal is preferred by the insurance company challenging the award in O.P. (MV)No.349/2010 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri (for short ‘the Tribunal) on the ground that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and exorbitant.

2. Claimant has preferred cross objection contending that the award passed by the Tribunal is meager and inadequate.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal shall be referred to as claimant and respondents as per their rank in the O.P(MV).

4. On 20.04.2009 at 13.15 hours, while the claimant was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-53-7558, through the public road and when he reached at Periyappuram, a lorry bearing registration No.KA-01-AC-4596 driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked down him, causing grievous injuries. Accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the 1st respondent. R2 is the RC owner and R3 is the insurer of the offending lorry. Claimant sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

5. Before the Tribunal R1 and R2 remained absent and they were set ex parte.

6. R3 insurance company filed written statement admitting the insurance policy for the offending lorry bearing registration No.KA-01-AC-4596. But R3 denied any negligence on the part of R1 and contended that there was contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. It was further contended that the amount of compensation claimed under various heads are exorbitant.

7. After trial, the learned Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.11,56,000/- to the claimant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition together with cost.

8. Now let us see whether the award passed by the Tribunal needs any interference by this Court.

9. Accident is admitted. The evidence on record would show that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of R1, who was the driver of the offending lorry.

 10. The medical records would show that the claimant sustained fracture both bones left fore arm, comminuted fracture left ulna, lacerated wound 3x5 cm over left elbow, lacerated wound forehead and multiple abrassions all over the body and he was taken to hospital at Perinthalmanna and treated there as inpatient from 20.04.2009 to 25.04.2009. Medical records would also show that after discharge from Al-shifa hospital, Perinthalmanna, he had undergone treatment in an ayurvedic hospital.

11. The learned counsel for the insurance company contended that the amount of ₹1,68,000 awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of earning for a period of 24 months is exorbitant and the loss of earning can be given only for a period of six months.

12. The insurance company further contended that the medical board assessed the disability as 75%, which is very high. According to the learned counsel, though the permanent disability was 75%, it was only with respect to the left hand and not for the whole body.

13. The evidence on record would show that the medical board has assessed the permanent disability as 75%. So there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the insurance company that the Tribunal ought not have taken the disability as 75%.

14. The notional monthly income of the claimant taken by the Tribunal was Rs.7,000/-. The evidence on record would show that the claimant who sustained grievous injuries had to undergo prolonged treatment. Moreover, taking into account the permanent disability sustained by the claimant, loss of earning for a period of 11 months is to be awarded. Therefore, under the head loss of earning he is entitled to get only an amount of ₹77,000/-(7,000x11).

15. It is noted that while calculating compensation for continuing permanent disability the Tribunal has not added future prospects to the notional income. Claimant was aged 45 at the time of accident. Therefore, 25% of his income is to be added towards future prospects (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680]. If 25% is thus added to his notional income fixed by this Court, the amount would come to ₹8,750/-(7,000+1,750). Permanent disability as per the medical certificate is 75%. The victim was aged 45, the multiplier applicable to him is 14. Accordingly, an amount of ₹11,02,500/- is awarded under the head compensation for permanent disability (8,750x12x14x75/100) instead of ₹8,19,000/-

16. Under the head loss of amenities, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount. Hence an amount of ₹1,00,000/- is awarded under the said head.

17. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under all other heads found to be just and reasonable and therefore needs no interference.

18. Accordingly, the compensation is recalculated as indicated in the tabular statement shown herein below:

                 

19. In the light of the findings rendered above, the contentions raised by the Insurance company that the amount awarded by the Tribunal are exorbitant and excessive is devoid of any merit and accordingly, the said contention is liable to be rejected.

20. In view of the above findings, MACA 2761/2016 filed by the insurance company stands dismissed. No cost. CO.No.131/2016 stands allowed with costs.

21. R3 insurance company shall deposit the award amount as enhanced by this Court with 9% interest in the Bank Account of the claimant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after deducting the deposit if any already made.

                  The claimant shall produce the details of the bank account before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manjeri, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.