IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized a liberal approach in compensation claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, allowing for notional income estimation in the absence of evidence.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act), has been filed by the claimant in O.P.(MV) No.1252/2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 23/03/2018. The respondents herein are the respondents before the Tribunal. The parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition.

2. According to the petitioner, on 27/11/2006 at 10:00 a.m. he was riding his motorcycle, bearing registration No. KL-H-1082 through the Adoor-Punalur public road and when he reached Adoor-Thatta road, a mini lorry, bearing registration No.TN-76-A-1218, driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down as a result of which he sustained serious injuries. The first respondent driver, the second respondent owner and the third respondent insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to compensate the petitioner. Hence the petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.6,00,250/- as compensation under various heads.

3. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte.

4. The third respondent filed written statement, admitting the existence of a policy, but denied liability.

5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A11 were marked on the side of the petitioner. No documentary evidence was produced by the respondents.

6. The Tribunal on a consideration of the documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the first respondent resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of Rs.75,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved, the petitioner has come up in appeal.

7. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court.

8. Heard both sides.

9. The petitioner/injured challenges the Award of the Tribunal under the following heads -

Notional income– In the appeal memorandum it is contended that no opportunity had been granted to the petitioner to adduce oral evidence to prove his income. However, no such argument was advanced during the course of arguments. The petitioner is stated to have been working as Head Clerk, Munsiff Court, Adoor. Therefore, there would certainly have been documents to show his monthly income. The petitioner could very well have produced his salary certificate to prove his income. However, for reasons best known to the petitioner, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced to substantiate his case that he was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.14,000/-. In the absence of any sort of evidence to prove his monthly income, the claim of the petitioner that he was drawing an amount of Rs.14,000/- per month cannot be accepted. However the case of the petitioner that he was a Government servant at the time of the incident and that he had sustained injuries in the incident are not disputed. The Act being a beneficial legislation, a liberal approach needs to be adopted. Therefore even in the complete absence of either oral or documentary evidence, the income of the petitioner can be notionally fixed on the basis of settled precedents. In Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Allian.Co.Ltd, (2011 (3) KLT Suppl. 80 (SC) = (2011) 13 SCC 236), the monthly income of a coolie in the year 2004 was taken to be Rs.4,500/-. The incident in this case took place in the year 2006. Therefore going by the aforesaid dictum, in the absence of any evidence or material to show the income of the petitioner and coupled with an increase of Rs.500/- per year, the income of the petitioner in the year 2006 can be fixed at Rs.5,500/-.

10. Loss of income - According to the petitioner, due to the injuries sustained by him he was unable to work for a period of six months and hence claimed an amount of Rs.98,000/-. No am