JUDGMENT :

MARY JOSEPH, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is against an award passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta (for short ‘the Tribunal’) on 01.04.2014 in O.P. (M.V.) No. 1742/2007.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this appeal will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioners and respondents 1 to 3 in accordance with their status in the Original Petition.

3. The appellants herein are the petitioners before the Tribunal who moved the above Original Petition seeking for a sum of Rs. 12,00,250/- as compensation for the death of one Mr. Somarajan in a motor accident occurred at 1.45 p.m. on 02.12.2007 with the involvement of a mini bus bearing Registration No. KL-04/T-6916. Mr. Somarajan was a pedestrian through Pampa-Mannarakulanji public road and he sustained injuries when knocked down by the mini bus referred to above. Alleging that the motor accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the mini bus by its driver and claiming compensation, the above Original Petition was filed. The driver, the owner and the insurer of the Bus were arrayed as respondents 1 to 3 in the Original Petition.

4. During the pendency of the Original Petition, the father of the victim, who was the 3rd petitioner in the Original Petition died. The wife of the victim was carrying at the relevant time of his death following the motor accident. She gave birth to a child later who was impleaded in the Original Petition as additional 5th petitioner.

5. Respondents 1 and 2 did not contest the Original Petition. 3rd respondent after entering appearance has filed a written statement admitting issuance of a valid policy for the mini bus, covering the date of the motor accident. It was contended by the 3rd respondent that 1st respondent was driving the mini bus carefully and vigilantly and the motor accident was caused due to the carelessness and negligence of the victim who was walking through the road. Claims regarding the age, the occupation, the monthly income and the compensation were also disputed.

6. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A10 were marked in evidence by the petitioners. Respondents did not adduce any evidence. Based on the above evidence, the Tribunal found that the driver of the Mini Bus had caused the motor accident by his rash and negligent driving. Petitioners were also found by the Tribunal entitled to get compensation for the death of Mr. Somarajan, following the fatal injuries sustained by him in the motor accident and in the calculation adopted by it, arrived at a sum of Rs. 10,21,200/- as the compensation payable. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the quantum of compensation stood awarded by the Tribunal, petitioners approached this Court in the appeal on hand.

7. It is contended by Sri. T.K. Koshy, the learned counsel for the petitioners that though the Identity Card and the Salary Certificate of the victim of the motor accident were produced and marked respectively in evidence as Exts.A9 and A8 to establish his occupation and monthly income, the Tribunal discarded those for the reason that the person responsible for it’s issuance was not examined. The Tribunal fixed Rs. 4,000/- notionally as his monthly income and calculated compensation payable on its basis. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal is totally unjustified in discarding the documents marked in evidence and relied on by the petitioners and fixing the monthly income notionally. He has also relied on the decision of the Apex Court to fortify his argument.

8. In the context on hand it is relevant to have discussion on the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant. Rajani vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2022 (5) KLT Online 1012 (SC) has been relied on by the learned counsel to rest his argument that a robust view has to be taken of the quantum of earnings since documentary evidence may not be available to specifically prove the quantum of earnings of a self-cultivating agriculturist/self-skilled worker. The lea