IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Injury in motor accident – Medical Board’s certificate can be accepted even without a witness being examined.
(2) Income Tax Return can be accepted for computation of income.

JUDGMENT :

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

The appeals are by the claimant/injured in a motor accident, seeking enhancement of the award. The accident occurred on 09.04.2007 when the motorbike, driven by the claimant with a pillion rider, was hit by a truck which was driven rashly and negligently. The Tribunal found the accident to be proven and the negligence to be of the truck driver. The drivers of both the vehicles were having valid licences, and the truck was covered by a valid insurance policy. These findings have attained finality since the insurance company acceded to the dismissal of their appeal before the High Court.

2. On the quantum, the Tribunal found the disability suffered by the claimant to be 45% as against the claim of 90%, sought to be established through production of a disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, produced herein as Annexure 2. The Tribunal looked at the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 and the schedule therein to find the amputation at hip having been assessed at 90 % for loss of earning capacity; which the Tribunal found to be for the amputation of both legs. It was hence, 45% was adopted by the Tribunal as the disability of the claimant who lost one leg. The High Court deciding the appeal filed by the insurance company and the claimant having rejected the claim of composite negligence made a nominal enhancement of the disability as 50%.

3. On the income of the petitioner/claimant, who had just completed his graduation, the Tribunal disbelieved the income tax returns filed for the years 2005-2006, 2006-2007 and 2007- 2008. The Tribunal found that since the parents of the claimant were running a big business, that run in the name of the claimant was only a ruse to save income tax. The Tribunal hence adopted the income as Rs.4,500/- per month and applied the multiplier of 17 and determined the loss of income due to disability at 45%, totalling Rs.4,13,100/-. As far as the medical expenses, the Tribunal awarded Rs.3,39,926/- out of the total claim of Rs.12,54,985/- for which vouchers were produced. For the purpose of artificial limb, an amount of Rs.4,70,805/- was found payable. Together with Rs.1 lakh for attendant expenses, the total award of the Tribunal came to Rs.13,23,831/-.

4. The High Court in the quantum appeal, enhanced the monthly income to Rs.8,000/- finding that the reasoning of the Tribunal to reject the income tax returns bordered on mere surmises and conjectures and 40% was added for future loss of income, applying the multiplier of 18, as against the multiplier of 17 applied by the Tribunal. Insofar as the medical expenses are concerned, the Tribunal increased the quantum to Rs.8 lakhs. The Tribunal awarded a further sum of Rs.1 lakh for pain and shock and an amount of Rs.2 lakhs as loss of amenities, awarding a total amount of Rs.23,09,600/-.

5. Mr. G.V. Rao, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the claimant submitted that even going by the Employees’ Compensation Act, the amputation of leg at the hip brings in 90% disability which is evidenced further by the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board. There was no reason for the Tribunal or the High Court to go behind the medical certificate issued by experts and reduce the disability to 45% and 50%. It is further submitted that there were no amounts granted for future medical expenses, especially since the petitioner/claimant has been fitted with a prosthetic leg which needs to be changed periodically. The learned Senior Counsel also vigorously challenged the reduction of annual income from that revealed in the income tax returns. Decisions were placed to submit that income tax returns when produced has to be accepted and, in any event, the High Court having found the reasoning of the Tribunal to reject the income tax returns as based on mere surmises and conjectures, failed to accept the returns as such. The High Court merely adopted the income of Rs.8,000/- per month without any basis and the reduction was not reason