YOUSAF, S/O.IBRAHEEM KALANCHIRA HOUSE, KULATHUR P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT Vs. D. ALBERT, S/O. DAVID, SUNIL BHAVAN, KUTTIYATTOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, CHATTUKAPARA P.O KANNUR DISTRICT (DRIVER)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred challenging the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri in O.P.(MV)No.271/2009. The challenge is against the quantum of compensation awarded.

(2.) Facts relevant for consideration of this appeal are : Appellant sustained very severe injuries in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 1.7.2008 at 8.p.m. on the side of the public road, Valancherry. The appellant was a pedestrian. A lorry came and hit against the appellant and thereby he sustained fracture of D12 vertebra. There was also fracture of L1 and L2. There was also rupture of left diaphram. It is certified that he is having complete paraplegia and his disability was assessed by the District Medical Board as 75%, and the State disability board assessed his disability as 85%. There is no appeal by the respondents in the claim petition. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that practically appellant became a vegetable and he cannot even move without the help of a bystander. He is practically fully laid up. It is the submission that the Tribunal ought to have taken 100% disability for calculating compensation for loss of earning capacity. In this matter there was loss of movement and sensation below the level of umbilicus i.e. paraplegia of lower limbs with no sensation and no motor power and total incontinence. It is the further submission that the appellant was aged 23 years at the time of the accident and was an agriculturist who used to attend a workshop to add to his income. It is also the submission that the compensation awarded on pecuniary loss as also non-pecuniary loss are too inadequate and therefore, reassessment of compensation on all heads, is highly necessary.

(3.) We have also heard the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. The learned counsel submitted before us that the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 10,56,016/- and it is a just compensation. As such, an interference by this court is not warranted. It is the further submission that even though there is an assessment of disability by the State board, the Tribunal has rightly considered only 75% of disability for the assessment purpose as both his upper limbs are movable.