IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MFA No. 960 of 2001()
1. E. RAMAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KUTHUKALLIL IBRAHIM
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER
For Respondent :SRI.M.JACOB MURICKAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.RAMACHANDRAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :30/01/2007
O R D E R
(M.RAMACHANDRAN & S.SIRI JAGAN, JJ)
-------------------------------------------------------------
M.F.A.No.960 of 2001-D
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of January, 2007
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran, J:
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri, while
deciding a claim arising out of a motor accident, which happened
on 22-05-1995, had awarded to the claimant in O.P.(MV).
No.1578 of 1996 a total compensation of Rs.1,13,000/-. The
appellant/petitioner has come up in appeal feeling aggrieved
about the adequacy of the award of compensation.
2. The principal submission of the learned counsel for
the appellant was that when there were materials to indicate
that as a driver he was earning Rs.15.000/- per month in Gulf
countries during the relevant time. Tribunal had taken the
yardstick for awarding compensation as Rs.3000/- as the monthly
earning of the claimant. However, it has to be noticed that
apart from producing a certificate there was no steps taken for
proving the contents of the document and we find that criticism
as against the Tribunal may not lie, since the Tribunal had
adopted a realistic stand, by laying down that the average
[MFA No.960 of 2001] -2-
earnings of a driver is Rs.3000/- per month at least as per the
Indian standards. It has also to be noticed that there is nothing
to indicate that his profession was as a driver, going by the
entries of his Passport, although benefit of doubt has been
extended in favour of the claimant.
3. The doctor had certified the disability of the
appellant at 4% and on the head of loss of earning power the
appellant had been granted Rs.21,500/-; Rs.7000/- towards
disability and Rs.25,000/- towards loss of employment.
4. It is difficult for us to accept the contention of the
appellant that the income of Rs.15,000/- should have been taken
as basis for computation of the compensation, or an
enhancement is just or equitable. Evidently the appellant had
failed to discharge his part of the duties. Consequently, the
appeal will stand dismissed.
M.RAMACHANDRAN
(JUDGE)
S.SIRI JAGAN
( JUDGE)
mks/
[MFA No.960 of 2001] -3-
M.RAMACHANDRAN,
&
S.SIRI JAGAN, JJ
——————————————————-
M.F.A.No. 960 of 2001-D
———————————————————
JUDGMENT
———————————————————
30th day of January, 2007