1. The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.465 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on account of the injuries sustained by her in a motor accident that occurred on 28.03.2019.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:-

On 28.03.2019 at about 5:30 p.m. while the petitioner was travelling as a pillion rider on the scooter bearing Registration No.KL-42/J-1290 through the Paravur-Aluva road from West to East and when reached at the place of occurrence, a bus bearing Registration No.KL-16/8325, driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit the scooter in which the petitioner was on the pillion. Due to the impact of the hit, the petitioner sustained severe injuries.

3. The owner and driver of the offending bus were arrayed as 1st and 2nd respondents respectively, whereas the insurer was arrayed as the 3rd respondent. The 1st and 2nd respondents filed joint written statement. The 3rd respondent also filed a written statement mainly disputing the quantum of compensation claimed despite admitting insurance coverage of the vehicle involved in the accident.

4. During trial, from the side of the petitioners Exhibits A1 to A12 were marked. From the side of the respondents no evidence whatsoever was produced.

5. After trial, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the 2nd respondent, and being the insurer, the 3rd respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The compensation was quantified at Rs.4,10,600/- with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate costs. Seeking enhancement of the said compensation awarded, the petitioner has come up with this appeal.

6. Heard learned counsel for both sides.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is too meager and is not sufficient to compensate the actual loss and damages incurred by the petitioner due to the accident. According to the counsel, the Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the petitioner reasonably and consequently awarded only a meager amount as compensation under the head of permanent disability. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent, the Insurance Company, would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is just, fair, reasonable and adequate and hence, no interference is warranted.

8. From the rival contentions raised, it is gatherable that the main dispute that revolves around this appeal is with respect to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, particularly under the head of permanent disability, loss of earnings and the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that, for the purpose of determining compensation under the head of permanent disability and loss of earnings, the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.12,000/-. In the petition, it was contended that the petitioner was a tailor by profession at the time of the accident and was earning a monthly income of Rs.25,000/-. However, apart from raising such a contention in the petition no evidence, whatsoever, was produced from the petitioner's side to substantiate her claim regarding her occupation and income. It was mainly taking note of the said fact that the Tribunal having regard to the year of accident and applying the principles in Ramachandrappa V. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236], assessed Rs.12,000/- as the monthly income of the petitioner. I also find no reason to interfere with the assessment of the income made by the Tribunal.

9. In order to prove that the petitioner had suffered permanent disability due to the injuries sustained in the accident, a disability certificate issued by a doctor was produced from the side of petitioner and marked as Ext.A7. A perusal of Ext.A7 reveals that the petitioner suffered 11.6% of disability due to the injuries sustained in the accident. However, the Tribunal scaled down the percentage of disability to 9% while determining the compensation under the head of permanent disability. Anyhow, no convincing reason is seen assigned by the Tribunal for scaling down the percentage of permanent disability assessed by the Doctor. If the Tribunal had any doubt, regarding the correctness of the percentage of disability, assessed by the Doctor, the proper course open to it was to refer the petitioner for re-assessment of the percentage of disability by a Medical Board instead of scaling down the same arbitrarily without assigning any convincing reason. As evident from the Medical Records, the petitioner had suffered the following injuries in the accident:

                  “ crush injury and avulsion on left lateral 3 toes, lacerated wound over dorsum of foot between the level of big toe and 2nd toe, traumatic amputation of 3rd, 4th and 5th toes etc.”

                  Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, I am of the view that 11.06% of permanent disability assessed by the Doctor can be acted upon for the purpose of determining the compensation under the head of permanent disability. The petitioner was aged 55 years at the time of accident. Therefore, in view of the decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)], the multiplier applicable is 11. Resultantly, the petitioner is entitled to get an amount of Rs.1,75,190/- (Rs.12,000/- x 12 x 11 x 11.06/100) as compensation under the head of permanent disability. Already an amount of Rs.1,42,560/- has been awarded by the Tribunal under the said head. After deducting the said amount, the petitioner is entitled to get an amount of Rs.32,630/- as additional compensation under the head of permanent disability.

10. Consequent to the revision in the monthly income, corresponding enhancement must be made to the compensation awarded under the head of loss of earnings also. Likewise, the Tribunal awarded loss of earnings only for a period of 3 months. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, I am of the view that he would have been prevented from doing any work or earning income at least for 10 months. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to get an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.12,000/- x 10) as compensation under the head of loss of earnings. After deducting the amount of compensation already awarded under the said head the petitioner is entitled to get an amount of Rs.84,000/- as additional compensation.

11. The nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner speaks for itself regarding the pain and sufferings endured by her due to the accident. Having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner, I am of the view that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is liable to be awarded as compensation under the head of pain and sufferings. Already an amount of Rs.90,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal under the said head. After deducting the said amount, the petitioner is entitled to get an amount of Rs.10,000/- as additional compensation under the head of pain and sufferings as well.

12. The hardships and inconveniences met by the petitioner due to the injuries sustained in the accident cannot be overlooked while awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. She had undergone 11 days of inpatient treatment. Likewise, as part of the treatment, her three toes were amputated. Disregarding all these aspects the Tribunal awarded only a meagre amount of Rs.27,000/- as compensation under the head of loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. I am of the considered view that the said amount is on the lower side and interference is highly warranted. Hence I am inclined to award an additional compensation of Rs.63,000/- under the head of loss of amenities and enjoyment of life.

13. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads appears to be reasonable and justifiable, and hence, no interference is warranted with respect to those heads. Hence an amount of Rs.1,89,630/- (Rs.32,630/- + Rs.84,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.63,000/-) is liable to be added towards the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

                  In the light of the aforesaid observations and findings, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of Rs.1,89,630/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Nine Thousand Six Hundred and Thirty only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit. The respondent insurance company is ordered to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest and proportionate costs before the Tribunal within a period of three months from the date of this judgment.