The stability and consistency of income, impact of injuries, and correct multiplier for assessing compensation are crucial factors in determining the quantum of compensation in motor vehicle accident cases.

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

1. The claimant in O.P.(MV) No. 834/2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur, is the appellant herein. He filed the application for compensation for the injuries and consequential disability sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the 1st respondent, who is the owner also, and insured with the 2nd respondent. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the 1st respondent, and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 3,42,400/- under the following heads:

Loss of earning	Rs. 55,000/-
Medical and miscellaneous expenses	Rs. 82,641/-
Bystander expenses	Rs. 9,450/-
Transportation expenses	Rs. 10,000/-
Extra nourishment	Rs. 6,000/-
Damage to clothing etc.	Rs. 300/-
Pain and suffering	Rs. 25,000/-
Compensation towards permanent partial disability	Rs. 1,44,000/-
Loss of amenities and conveniences etc.	Rs. 5000/-
Compensation for disfituration	Rs. 5,000/-
Total	3,42,391/-
	Round off to Rs. 3,42,400/-

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has come to this Court with the above appeal.

2. Heard counsel for the appellant and counsel for the Insurance Company.

3. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was working as a driver-cum-salesman in a shop in Qatar at the time of accident and he was getting a monthly income of Rs. 28,000/- and he had produced evidence to prove this fact as well. Further, while he was in Qatar, he had sent Rs. 58,103/- within a span of 7 months, which will go to show that he was sending at least Rs. 8,300/- per month out of his income and that will go to show that he will be getting more than that amount as income. This fact was not considered properly by the Tribunal for fixing his monthly income and the Tribunal has arbitrarily fixed the income as Rs. 5,000/-. Further, after the accident, he could not get the same employment and so that has affected his earning capacity considerably. The amount awarded under the head 'loss of earning capacity' is also on the lower side. He had suffered 15% permanent partial disability and he will have to undergo further treatment, for which no amount was granted under the head 'future treatment'. The amounts awarded under the heads 'pain and suffering' and 'loss of amenities in life' are also on the lower side. So according to him, the appellant is entitled to enhancement on all heard.

4. On the other hand, counsel for Insurance Company submitted that the income of the appellant was not proved by examining the employer. The employment in Gulf countries is not permanent in nature and it will have its own uncertainties. So, under the circumstances, the Tribunal was perfectly justified in fixing monthly income of Rs. 5,000/- for the purpose of assessing compensation. The Tribunal has considered all the aspects correctly and awarded just compensation and no interference is called for at the hands of this Court.

5. We have considered the contentions of both parties in detail.

6. The case of the appellant was that he was aged 29 years and was a driver-cum-salesman of food articles and working in Qatar and getting Rs. 28,000/- per month at the time of accident. He had produced Ext. A15 driving licence and Exts. A10 and A10(a) passport to prove that he was employed in Qatar. But, he had not produced any document to prove that he was getting Rs. 28,000/- per month at that time. Though, in the petition, he had mentioned his income as Rs. 28,000/- per mensum, when he was examined as PW1, his case was that his income was Rs. 60,000/- per month. Therefore, he had no consistent case regarding his income. It is true that he had produce