AJMAL Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN unfortunate boy, 18 years old, sustained very serious injuries in an accident on account of the negligent driving of a vehicle insured with the respondent. On account of the accident, he practically lost his future, insofar as even the doctors have certified 75% physical disability. He filed O.P.(MV) No. 152/2006 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri, claiming compensation for the injuries and consequent disability suffered by him. The Tribunal, after finding negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, assessed compensation under various heads as follows:

(2.) ACCORDING to the appellant, he was a decorating worker, earning a monthly income of Rs. 5,000/-. But, the Tribunal arbitrarily fixed the monthly income of the appellant only as Rs. 2,000/-. The accident was on 20.5.2004. The next contention of the appellant is that the appellant having been disabled for the whole of his life, he would require a bystander throughout his life. Therefore, the compensation for extra nourishment and bystander's expenses is on the lower side. The further contention is that although the appellant suffered 75% disability, which has been accepted by the Tribunal, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for loss of amenities in life. Yet another contention of the appellant is that for a person aged 18 years, the multiplier to be adopted for calculating loss of earning capacity is 18 as per the decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2010(2) KLT 802 (SC). But the Tribunal has adopted only 17. Insofar as the appellant would require continued treatment for the rest of his life, the compensation awarded for future treatment is also on the lower side. The appellant also contends that the compensation for pain and suffering is also on the lower side.

(3.) WE have considered the rival contentions in detail.