JUDGMENT :

This matter is of the year 2022 and has not been admitted. However, both sides are ad idem that it can be disposed of, after being formally admitted, based on the undisputed evidence on record -handed over by them across the Bar.

2. I, therefore, admit this appeal and proceed to dispose it of finally, with the consent of both sides.

3. The Original Petition, from which the impugned Award was issued by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vatakara, was filed by late Ebrahim Kutty C.N., who was involved in an accident caused by the offending vehicle owned and driven by the sixth respondent, and which is insured by the appellant - Insurance Company.

4. Pertinently, the appellant does not dispute the accident, or the fact that late Ebrahim Kutty C.N. sustained injuries; but impugn the Award of the Tribunal broadly on three grounds namely: (a) that the notional income adopted in favour of the claimant was wrong; (b) that the multiplier adopted was incorrect; and (c) that the percentage of disability found in favour of late Ebrahim Kutty C.N. was without any basis.

5. I have heard Sri.P.G.Ganappan – learned standing counsel for the appellant and Sri.Krishnalal S. -learned counsel appearing respondents 1 to 5. The notice to the sixth respondent has already been dispensed with; and, in any event, in view of the holdings proposed in this judgment, this Court would be justified in disposing of this appeal in his absence.

6. Sri.P.G.Ganappan – learned standing counsel for the appellant, vehemently argued that since no evidence had been led by late Ebrahim Kutty C.N. or by his legal heirs, namely respondents 1 to 5 herein, regarding his income, the adoption of Rs.15,000/-as the notional income is in violation of the declarations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236]. He then submitted that, since the multiplier to be adopted was 9 and since it has already been so done by the Tribunal, an additional amount of Rs.3,60,000/-, towards 'loss of earnings' from 26.01.2017 to 09.02.2018, was incorrect. He further contended that the conclusion of the Tribunal, that late Ebrahim Kutty C.N. had suffered 50% disability, is without any basis, particularly when it itself records in the impugned order that no evidence had been led by him or by his legal heirs to prove so.

7. In response, Sri.Krishnalal S. -learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 5 submitted that the Tribunal has correctly assessed the income of late Ebrahim Kutty C.N. , because he was a self employed person, conducting his own furniture manufacturing unit and engaged in its retail sale. He submitted that, even going by Ramachandrappa (supra), the income reckonable for a person, with an unascertainable sum in the year 2017, was Rs.11,000/-; and that going by the further ratio in Rajani v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [2022 (5) KLT Online 1012 (SC)], a robust view has to be taken with respect to persons who are engaged in skilled work and such other avocations.

8. As regards the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal, Sri.Krishnalal S., submitted that this is strictly in terms of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)]; and that the contention of the appellant, that loss of earnings could not be given additionally, is not only untenable but without any rational basis.

9. As regards the third afore argument of the appellant, Sri.Krishnalal S., submitted that, even though the certificate of disability could not be produced by his clients or by late Ebrahim Kutty C.N., this has been correctly assessed by the Tribunal in paragraph 34 of the impugned award, wherein, it has found that the obtention of such a certificate was incapable on account of the peculiar facts involved in this case. He thus prays that this appeal be dismissed.

10. I have evaluated and assessed the rival submissions on the touchstone of various documents and materials available on record and those which hav