The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility of a document attested by a Consulate to ascertain the salary of a person employed abroad, without formal proof, under the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948.

Jyothindranath, J.

M.A.C.A.No.343 of 2011 is filed by the National Insurance Company Ltd./the 3rd respondent in O.P.(M.V)No.792 of 2008 on the files of the Court of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vatakara. Cross Objection No.77 of 2011 is filed by the respondents/claimants in the above appeal.

2. A motor vehicle accident occurred on 10.5.2008 near Orkkatteri Service Station. The deceased Ismail sustained very grievous injuries in the said motor vehicle accident and succumbed to the injuries. The wife, children and aged father of the deceased moved the above referred claim petition before the Tribunal for a total compensation of 25,00,000/-, alleging negligence on the side of the driver of the Jeep as cause of the accident and further arraigned the driver, owner and insurance company of the said vehicle as respondent Nos.1 to 3 respectively. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the Jeep and awarded a total compensation of 11,83,000/-. The Tribunal considered the monthly income of the deceased as 12,000/-. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Insurance Company filed M.A.C.A.No.343 of 2011. The claimants also filed the Cross Objection raising a contention that the compensation awarded is not a just compensation and the quantum assessed is on a lower side.

3. When the appeal came up for hearing the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted before us that here is a case where the deceased was allegedly working abroad. It is the further submission that without considering the fact that the employment and income of the deceased are not properly proved, the Tribunal considered monthly income of 12,000/- for assessment purpose. The learned counsel also drew our attention to the decision of this Court in Valsamma v. Binu Jose (2014 (1) KLT 10). It is the submission that while the income of a person working abroad is considered, the uncertainty in the job and the high expense that will be incurred for his personal maintenance are to be considered by the Court. It is also the submission that when uncertainty regarding the job is therein, the Tribunal erred in considering an income treating him as working abroad. It is also the submission that in this case, the Tribunal adopted 12,000/- as the monthly income without any basis. Hence, an interference by this Court on that regard is necessary.

4. The learned counsel for the Cross Objectors/claimants submitted before us that in this case, the salary certificate issued by the employer abroad, which is duly attested by the Consulate was produced before the Tribunal. It is also the submission that in this case, PW2 is none other than the employer of the deceased and he proved the employment certificate. It is the submission of the learned counsel that when there is reliable materials to show that the income of the deceased was 2500 Qatar Riyals which will be equivalent to about 30,000/-, the Tribunal should have taken the said amount as his monthly income. To buttress his argument, he drew our attention to the decision in Jiju Kuruvila v. Kunjujamma Mohan ((2013) 9 SCC 160). There, the Apex Court relied upon a document which was attested by the Diplomatic and Consular Office. It is also the submission of the learned counsel before us that the compensation awarded on various heads like `loss of consortium', 'loss of love and affection' and 'funeral expenses' are on a lower side. It is the submission of the learned counsel that the deceased was aged only 31 years at the time of death whereas, the first claimant was aged only 22 years. The second claimant was aged only three years whereas, the 3rd claimant was aged only 9 months. The 4th claimant is the aged father of the deceased who was fully depending upon the earnings of the deceased. It is also the submission that following the dictum laid down in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)) the Tribunal should have only ded