Case: M.K. Gopinathan Vs. J. Krishna

2. The case of the appellant is that he was employed in Malaysia as a Tool & Die Engineer. He had come to his native town in Kerala to attend his sisters wedding. On 15.5.1996, when the appellant was traveling in a jeep, a bus coming from the opposite direction rammed into the jeep resulting in five deaths and the appellant suffered severe injuries, namely a crush injury on his upper right arm which had to be amputated. The appellant was treated as ant in the hospital for 42 days and during which time four surgeries were conducted on him3. The appellant filed O.P. (MV) No. 304 of 1997 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal claiming Rs.75,00,000/as compensation. Before the Tribunal, the appellant examined himself as P.W.14. The Tribunal did not believe the version of the appellant that he had been employed permanently as a Tool and Die Engineer in Malaysia and was drawing Rs.50,000/per month. However, the Tribunal noticed that the appellant is permanently disabled to an extent of 70% due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. In the absence of any authentic, reliable and acceptable proof produced by the appellant to show his monthly income, the Tribunal considering the fact that the appellant is a qualified Engineer, and having regard to the Schedule to the Workmens Compensation Act, fixed his monthly income notionally at Rs.3,000/and considering his age at the time of accident, which is 34, applied the multiplier 17. The Tribunal, passed award on 28.02.2004, awarding compensation to the appellant to a tune of Rs.5,15,700/in all, with interest thereon at 9% p.a. from the date of claim petition and at 6% p.a. from 31.12.20014. The appellant, being aggrieved by the aforesaid award of the Tribunal, filed M.A.C.A. No. 1441 of 2004 before the High Court of Kerala. The Division Bench of the High Court, reassessed the entire case and opined that the Tribunal ought to have reasonably assessed the monthly salary which the appellant was getting at the time of accident. However, taking into consideration, the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court fixed the monthly income of the appellant at Rs.5,000/p.m., instead of Rs.3,000/fixed by the Tribunal, and enhanced the compensation from, as awarded by the Tribunal, to Rs., which is inclusive of Rs.4,200/awarded towards extra nourishment. The High Court, enhanced the interest payable on the compensation to the appellant from 31.12.2001, from 6% p.a. to 7.5% p.a5. Being dissatisfied with the order of the High Court, the appellant filed this appeal before this Court by way of Special Leave Petition.

Reasoning: 10. The appellant, before the Tribunal to prove his monthly income as Rs.50,000/and in support of his claim for compensation, except examining himself as P.W.4, did not examine any person. According to him, he was working as a Tool and Die Engineer in a company in Malaysia and getting Rs.50,000/as monthly salary. He did not even produce any authentic certificate to prove his income and qualification. He has produced only a xerox copy of a certificate issued by the Institute of Engineers India showing that he has passed Sections A & B of the Institutions examination in Mechanical Engineering branch. Though the appellant failed to prove his income with documentary evidence, the fact that he was holding an engineering certificate and was working in Malaysia is not in dispute. In the circumstances, taking into consideration the undisputed fact of his qualification, and particularly his working in overseas Company, we feel just and reasonable to consider his monthly income as Rs.