MANOJ P.S. Vs. SUDHAKARAN & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the petitioner in O.P.(MV) No. 827 of 2004 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. The aforesaid petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the bodily injuries suffered by him, in a road traffic accident. According to him, while he was riding in a motor cycle, another motor cycle bearing Registration No. KEE 2936 driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit on his motor cycle, resulting grievous injuries to him. He claimed Rs. 7,39,000/- (Seven Lakh Thirty Nine Thousand only) as compensation. The 3rd respondent insurance company opposed the said application disputing the quantum of compensation and cause of accident. But admitted the coverage of the insurance policy. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the respondents 1 and 2 are liable to pay compensation to the appellant and 3rd respondent insurance company is liable to indemnify the respondents 1 and 2.

(2.) On the aforesaid finding that the Tribunal passed the impugned award granting Rs. 5,01,380/- (Five Lakh One Thousand Three Hundred and Eighty only) as compensation to the appellant. The inadequacy and correctness of the quantum of compensation determined under various heads of claim are assailed in this appeal.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent insurance company. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the monthly income of the appellant fixed by the Tribunal is very low and requires enhancement. The quantum of compensation determined under the heads of pain and sufferings, loss of amenities, loss of earnings and permanent disability is inadequate and requires interference in this appeal by way of enhancement. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent insurance company advanced the arguments to justify the quantum of compensation determined under the various heads of claim referred above and the monthly income determined by the Tribunal. According to the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent, the quantum of compensation determined under the various heads of claim is just and fair and there is no reason to interfered with the amount determined by the Tribunal, in view of the evidence on record.