BINU Vs. ANITHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the petitioner in O.P. (MV) No.52/2006 on the file of the 2nd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram. The aforesaid petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation for the injuries suffered by him in a road traffic accident. According to him, the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the 2nd respondent and he is liable to pay compensation for him. That apart, the respondents 1 and 3 are the owner and insurer of the said vehicle. Therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 are liable to pay compensation and the 3rd respondent is liable to indemnify the respondents 1 and 2. Though the respondents disputed the claim and contended that the accident was not caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the 2nd respondent, after taking evidence, the Tribunal rejected the said contention and passed the impugned award, granting Rs. 51, 880/- as compensation to the appellant. The adequacy and correctness of the quantum of compensation are assailed in this appeal.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the monthly income of the appellant determined by the Tribunal is very low and the quantum of compensation granted under the heads, pain and sufferings, loss of amenities and permanent disability, is inadequate, in view of the evidence on record. It is also contended that the Tribunal has gone wrong by reducing the degree of disability from 8% to 3%, discarding Ext.A7 disability certificate.