The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation for injuries and disability under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, and the consideration of evidence of employment and income for determining the compensation.

JUDGMENT :

K. Vinod Chandran, J.

[MACA 1836/2011, MACA.987/2011, MACA.2044/2011]

These appeals arise from a common award passed by the Tribunal in two claim petitions. The present appeals are from O.P.(MV) No.223 of 2004.

2. The claimant, appellant in M.A.C.A.No.1836 of 2011, was travelling in a bus bearing registration No.KL-13/A 7495 when it collided with another bus and the appellant suffered serious injuries. The accident occurred on 25.09.2003. The appellant had to amputate his right hand from above elbow. The appellant claimed a compensation for the injuries suffered as also the disability occasioned.

The Tribunal found both the bus drivers to be negligent and mulcted liability at 50% on each of them. Though the Insurance Companies have also approached this Court [M.A.C.A.Nos.987 and 2044 of 2011], there is no challenge to the negligence so found by the Tribunal. The appeal of the assessee is confined to the enhancement claimed and those of the insurers assail the quantum granted by the Tribunal.

3. The appellant-claimant was admitted to Unity Health Complex, Mangalore, where amputation of right forearm above elbow was conducted. The appellant had also suffered some laceration scalp with cerebral concussion as noticed in Exhibit A10 wound certificate. Exhibit A11 discharge summary evidences the amputation having been carried out and hospitalization for a period of 14 days.

4. The expenses claimed were given in toto as per the bills produced by the claimant-appellant. For transportation also, an amount of Rs. 4,900/- was granted, most of which were supported by vouchers.

5. To prove his employment, the claimant has produced Exhibit A16 series, which are attested copies of two Passports in relation to himself. In fact, the copies of the Passports show that the claimant was continuously employed abroad and that too in the Sultanate of Oman. For proving the income, the appellant produced Exhibit A15. The learned Counsel for the appellant-claimant submits that though the document is shown as tourist taxi bills in the award, actually Exhibit A15 is an income certificate. This Court has examined Exhibits A14 and A15. It is seen that Exhibit A14 is a series of taxi bills and Exhibit A15 is a certificate issued by the Omani employer of the injured, wherein his salary was shown as Omani Rial 142 per month.

6. This Court has also gone through the deposition of the injured-appellant, by name Narayanan. As pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company, the award only shows the examination of one Noushad, who was the claimant in the other application. However, the deposition of P.W.2 is seen from the records. It is also indicated that the 3rd respondent and the 6th respondent, both the Insurance Companies, have cross-examined the appellant-claimant. From the deposition it is seen that there is no serious dispute raised against Exhibit A15, though questions were generally asked on the same. Despite the fact that Exhibit A15 was shown as taxi bills, the records show the contrary. It is also seen from the document Exhibit A15 that it has been duly attested. The Oman Chamber of Commerce & Industry has attested the signature of the authorised signatory of Khalfan Khamis Rashid Al-Mujrafi, the employer of the injured. The document is also attested by the Embassy of India at Muscat, which attestation is of the signature and seal of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Sultanate of Oman. Hence, there is no reason why reliance should not be placed on the said document. The claim was that the appellant was entitled to a monthly income in Indian rupees of 15620/- and the Tribunal adopted only Rs. 10,000/-. The exchange rate on adopting the said computation would be Rs. 110/- per Omani Rial. There is no dispute on the exchange rate at that point of time, raised by the Insurance Companies in their cross-examination. In fact the le