RAGHUNATH D Vs. PRAVEENKUMAR M V

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the petitioner, who obtained the impugned award granting Rs. 4,99,420/- as compensation to him in O.P.(MV) No. 413/2011 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. The said application was filed under section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming an amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- as compensation for the bodily injuries and consequential disability suffered by him as a result of a road traffic accident. According to him, on 14.12.2010 at about 1.15 p.m., while he was walking along Thiruvankulam Panchayat road, the offending motor cycle, owned by the second respondent and ridden by the first respondent came in a rash and negligent manner, hit him and he has sustained grievous injuries. According to him, the accident was caused by the rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle by the first respondent and thereby the second respondent is liable to pay compensation to him and the third respondent with whom the vehicle was insured is liable to indemnify the second respondent by paying compensation. The respondent resisted the said contention, but the 3rd respondent admitted the coverage of the insurance policy. Both parties adduced evidence and after considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal passed the impugned award granting Rs. 4,99,420/- as compensation to the petitioner. The inadequacy and correctness of the quantum of compensation determined under various heads of claim are challenged in this appeal.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the third respondent insurance company.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner that the amount determined as the monthly income is very low, considering the fact that the petitioner was a barber by profession at the time of accident. The Tribunal failed to consider Ext.A12 identity card issued by the Welfare Board of Barbers and Beauticians to the petitioner in its correct perspective while determining the quantum of monthly income. The amount granted towards transport expenses is also inadequate in view of the requirement of prolonged treatment and the nature of injuries suffered by him. The compensation granted for permanent disability is disproportionate with the actual disability suffered by him. It is also contended that the amount granted under the head 'pain and sufferings' is inadequate. The Tribunal discarded the claim under loss of amenities and no amount was granted under the said head.