IMPORTANT POINT
The court modified the tribunal's compensation award, emphasizing the need for just and reasonable compensation without unjustified deductions.

JUDGMENT :

(Shoba Annamma Eapen, J.)

This appeal has been filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.1210 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala. The respondents herein are the respondents before the tribunal.

2. The case of the appellant/claimant is that on 10.09.2007 at 09.30 p.m., while he was riding as a pillion in a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-4/M-6781 through Kanjirappally – Erattupetta road, a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-01/E-312 ridden by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the appellant’s motorcycle, whereby the appellant sustained serious injuries. The 1st respondent is the driver, 2 nd respondent is the registered owner, 3 rd respondent is the insured and the 4th respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle.

3. Respondents 1 to 3 remained ex parte. The 4 rd respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A17 were marked on the side of the appellant/claimant. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of Rs.2,92,500/- as compensation under different heads against the 4th respondent being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant claims enhancement under the following heads:

Loss of earnings:- The Tribunal found that the appellant who was working as a salesman in the Kerala Beverages Corporation was earning an amount of Rs.88,320/- as salary and he receives only an amount of Rs.23,900/- and there was a loss of Rs.64,420/- from his salary. But the tribunal granted only an amount of Rs.40,000/- after deducting 1/3rd of the said amount towards personal expenses. Since the claim petition was filed seeking compensation for injuries sustained that resulted in permanent disability, by the injured himself, the Tribunal should not have effected any deduction at all, towards personal expenses. The deduction of 1/3rd done is not justified. Hence, I find that the appellant is entitled to get the full amount of Rs.64,420/-. The tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 40,000/-. Hence the appellant is entitled to get an additional amount of Rs.24,420/- as well.

Notional income: The main contention of the appellant is that the monthly notional income fixed by the tribunal is on the lower side. It is evident that the Tribunal treated the appellant as an employee of Kerala State Beverages Corporation and identified the multiplier with reference to the age of retirement on superannuation. The monthly income for the post retiral period was taken only as Rs.2,000/-. I am of the view that the monthly income fixed notionally by the Tribunal in that regard is too meagre and it invites interference. I am of the view that even after retirement he could earn a monthly income of Rs.5,000/- and accordingly, I fix the monthly income for the purpose of awarding compensation for permanent disability as Rs.5,000/-.

Permanent disability:- Tribunal has assessed the permanent disability of the appellant as 15%. The learned standing counsel for the fourth respondent insurer contended that the appellant did not examine the doctor who issued the said certificate and hence, the Tribunal ought not to have acted upon Ext.A14 especially taking note of the fact that it is not one issued by a duly constituted Medical Board. A perusal of paragraph 13 of the impugned award would reveal that the Tribunal had taken note of the reasons stated in Ext.A14 disability certificate for assessing the extent of disability of the appellant and evidently, t