IMPORTANT POINT
In claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the income of the deceased must be established beyond a preponderance of probabilities, allowing for the acceptance of attested documents as valid evidence.

JUDGMENT :

EASWARAN S., J.

This is an appeal preferred by the legal heirs of one deceased Rasheed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vatakara in OP(MV)No.959 of 2018.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:

On 19.04.2018 at about 12.30 PM, while the deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-56-N-1817 from Naduvannur to his house and when he reached Kavil Kolorath Thazhe, a tipper lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-56-L-6130, driven in a rash and negligent in a manner, came and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased resulting in severe injuries to the rider of the vehicle late Rasheed. Immediately, Rasheed was taken to MMC Hospital, Ulliyeri and thereafter to MIMS, Kozhikode. Later, Rasheed succumbed to the injuries. Claiming compensation, the legal heirs approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vatakara. It was contended that the deceased Rasheed was working as a Cash Van Sales Representative in Quality Product Company LLC, Qatar and was getting a monthly income of Rs.1,35,030/- per month. In support of their contention, the claimants/appellants produced Exts.A1 to A17 documents. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the Insurance Company. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence, found that the documents produced by the appellants were not sufficient for the purpose of proving the avocation of deceased Rasheed being abroad as a Sales Representative earning a monthly income of Rs.1,35,030/- and therefore, proceeded to fix the monthly income notionally at Rs.25,000/- and granted the following compensation:

3. Aggrieved by the insufficiency in the grant of compensation, the claimants have approached this Court in the present appeal.

4. Heard, Sri.Deepu Lal Mohan – learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Smt.Deepa George learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent Insurance Company.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the salary certificate of the deceased Rasheed was produced as Ext.A9 and it was attested by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of State of Qatar, as well as the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Qatar and was counter signed by the Embassy of India. Therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the contents of Ext.A9. The learned counsel also pointed out that instead of accepting Ext.A9, the Tribunal went on a roving enquiry as to whether the amount was paid by the employer of deceased Rasheed into a separate bank account and subsequently this amount has been transferred into their account in India. Such a roving enquiry is impermissible by considering an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 .

6. On the other hand, Smt. Deepa George – learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, vehemently opposed the plea of