IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2011 / 5TH SRAVANA 1933 MACA.No. 1116 of 2011() ----------------------- OPMV.1023/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., METRO PALACE, GROUND FLOOR, OPP. NORTH RAILWAY STATION, ERNAKULAM, REP. BY ITS DULY AUTHORISED OFFICER. BY ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. GRACE, GRACE VILLA, ARATTUKUZHI, KOOTHALI P.O., VELLARADA-695 505. 2. JOSEPH.S., S/O. STEPHEN, KOYILVILAKOM, VALLAVILA P.O., KOLLAMKODE, K.K. DISTRICT-629 160. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1116 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The insurer is the appellant. The claimant staked a claim for compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 14/2/2000. Against a total claim of `2,00,000/-, the Tribunal proceeded to award an amount of `1,90,138/- as compensation as per the details shown below: Sl.No. Head of claim Amount awarded (in Rupees Basis - vital details in a nut shell 1 Loss of earning 20000 Rs.5000 x 4 months 2 Partial loss of earning 3 Transportation expenses 1500 4 Extra Nourishment 1500 5 Damage to clothing 500 6 Medical expenses 20038 A7 & A8 bills 7 Bystander's expenses 5600 100 x 56 days IP 8 Pain and suffering 20000 9 Loss of amenities and enjoyment in life 25000 M.A.C.A. No. 1116 of 2011 -: 2 :- Sl.No. Head of claim Amount awarded (in Rupees Basis - vital details in a nut shell 10 Permanent disability 96000 5000 x 12 x 16 x 10/100 11 Loss of future earning power Total 190138 Rs.190138/- with interest at 9% p.a. from 22/6/04 till realisation. 2. The appellant/insurance company claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. What is the grievance? The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is challenged. Called upon to be more specific, the learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that the appellant is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded under the head of permanent disability i.e., reduction in earning capacity. The Tribunal took `5,000/- as the monthly income; 16 as the multiplier and 10% as the extent of reduction in earning capacity. The claimant had examined himself as P.W.1. He had asserted that he is a College Lecturer employed at Immanuel College, Vazhichal. The First Information Statement clearly shows that in that earliest prompt statement the claimant had asserted that he is a Lecturer in the English Department at the said College. He had asserted that his monthly income was `7,400/-. The Tribunal in the absence of any better evidence did not accept the same. M.A.C.A. No. 1116 of 2011 -: 3 :- The Tribunal reckoned only 10% as the reduction in earning capacity. He was an inpatient for 56 days. He had suffered fracture of the pubic symphysis diastases He was treated with external fixation. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the absence of any better evidence, the Tribunal had grossly erred in assuming that the claimant was the Lecturer in a College - a Post Graduate, and that his income would have been `5,000/- per mensem. In the total absence of any documents to prove employment, salary or leave the Tribunal should not have meekly accepted that assertion, contends the learned counsel for the appellant. 4. We note that there was oral evidence of P.W.1. The appellant who had taken permission under Sec.170 of the M.V. Act had opportunity to cross-examine the claimant. We must assume that before permission was taken under Sec.170 of the M.V. Act and contest was advanced by the appellant/insurance company, the insurance company must have conducted its own investigation. It is significant to note that there was no specific assertion that the appellant is not employed as Lecturer in a College or is employed otherwise. We get convincing assurance from the contemporaneous and prompt First Information M.A.C.A. No. 1116 of 2011 -: 4 :- Statement lodged by the injured/claimant immediately after the accident which reveals the nature of his employment. The Tribunal has put the claimant to suffer by not accepting his assertion that he was getting a monthly income of `7,400/-. The Tribunal only chose to draw the presumption of prudence about the possible income of the claimant. In coming to that conclusion, the Tribunal has certainly followed the axiomatic principle that the burden is heavy on the claimant to produce satisfactory evidence in support of his employment and income; but had realistically noted that the absence of documents cannot persuade a Tribunal constituted for the purpose of rendering rough and ready justice by paying the reasonable, fair and just compensation to the victim. We are unable to agree that the Tribunal in such circumstances should throw its hands up. In any view of the matter, the assumption made by the Tribunal about the monthly income is in no way defective or unacceptable. 12% disability has been certified by the Doctor in the disability certificate. The Tribunal cautiously did not accept the same; but chose to accept only 10% as the extent of reduction in earning capacity. The Tribunal took note of the evidence of the victim/P.W.1 about his inability to continue in the employment as the Lecturer in a College which involves long hours of standing. M.A.C.A. No. 1116 of 2011 -: 5 :- He had hence given up that employment and was engaging himself in private tuition, he asserted. In any view of the matter, we are satisfied that the impugned award does not warrant interference. 5. It is contended that though the accident was suffered on 14/2/2000, the disability certificate was issued as early as on 31/3/2001. Considering the nature of the injury and the consequent disability, we are not persuaded to agree that the gap of time between the accident and the assessment of the disability is too short as to generate any inherent doubt or dissatisfaction about the acceptability of the disability certificate. 5. This appeal is, in these circumstances, dismissed. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- N.K. BALAKRISHNAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge