IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that reasonable claims regarding income should be accepted without strict documentary evidence, and the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner despite policy conditions prohibiting carrying passengers.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal arises out of the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, in OP(MV)No.682/2014.

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

The appellant, who is stated to be doing a partnership business in flex board met with an accident on 09.04.2013 at about 4 AM. The claimant along with his partner Sumesh, hired a Tata Ace goods carriage bearing Reg.No.KL-41-G-3107 belonging to the 1^st respondent and were travelling along with the goods in the platform of the vehicle. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle and therefore he claimed compensation towards the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident. It was contended that the appellant was earning a monthly income of Rs.10,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal proceeded to fix the notional income at Rs.9,000/- and then granted the following compensation:

3. While granting the aforesaid compensation, the Tribunal accepted the contention of the Insurance Company that the claimant was a gratuitous passenger in the vehicle and therefore was not entitled to claim compensation from the Insurance Company. Therefore, the owner of the vehicle was mulcted with the liability. It is as against the findings of the Tribunal exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability and also claiming enhancement of the compensation, that the claimant has approached this Court in the present appeal.

4. Heard Sri.KV Rajan – learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Sri.P.Jacob Mathew – learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company.

5. On a consideration of the rival submissions raised across the Bar, this Court finds that the claimant is entitled to succeed on the question of enhancement of the compensation as well as on the question as to whether the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner for the reasons to follow.

6. It is seen that the Tribunal discarded the averment of the claimant that he was earning a monthly income of Rs.10,000/- per month and proceeded to fix the notional income at Rs.9,000/-. In Sanjay Kumar v. Ashok Kumar and Another[2014 (5) SCC 330], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the claim of income is reasonable and in tune with the ground realities, the Tribunal is bound to apply the same without insisting on the documentary evidence. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the claimant having claimed only an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month, the same can be fixed as the income.

7. Once the income of the claimant is fixed as above, necessarily under the various non-conventional heads also, the claimant is entitled to enhancement.

8. A perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal shows that the Tribunal has awarded compensation under the head loss of earnings only for a period of five months. Considering the nature of injuries and also the avocation of the claimant, this Court is of the opinion that the compensation for loss of earnings can be increased to period of eight months.

9. Although this Court has found the entitlement of the claimant for enhancement, this Court need to address the most pivotal issue in this appeal. As noticed above, the Tribunal had exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability on the premises that the claimant was a gratuitous passenger in the vehicle and was not covered under the policy. This finding is also questioned by the claimant in the present appeal. The