The court established that compensation must be just and reasonable, fixing the notional income of the deceased at Rs.8000/- and modifying the total compensation to Rs.12,54,100/-.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioners in O.P.(M.V.) No. 1806/2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, are the appellants in M.A.C.A.No. 1509/2015. The 1^st respondent in the O.P is the appellant in M.A.C.A.No. 1031/2015. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal)

2. The O.P. was filed under under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the Mother and siblings of the deceased Eldho, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 19.10.2008. According to them, on 19.10.2008, at about 9.15 p.m., while the deceased was riding a motorcycle, a Tate Ace bearing Reg.No.KL-41/A-5262 driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit him down and as a result of which he sustained serious injuries and later on he succumbed to the injuries, on the same day, while under treatment.

3. The 1^st respondent is the driver, the 2^nd respondent is the owner and 3^rd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. According to the petitioners, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. was Rs.32,31,100/-(limited to Rs.30,00,000/-)

4. The insurance company filed a written statement, admitting the accident as well as policy, but disputing the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.

5. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A15 and B1 to B3.

6. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal found negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,95,500/- and directed the insurer to pay the same.

7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners and the 1^st respondent preferred these appeals.

8. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following:

Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

9. Heard Sri. V.N Sunil Kumar , the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners/appellants, Smt. Anupama Johny, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 and Sri.A.R George, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is regarding the income of the deceased as fixed by the Tribunal. According to him, the deceased was working as Welder in UAE, getting a monthly income of more than Rs.28,000/-, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.3500/-/-. The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable.

11. In order to prove the income of the petitioners, he has relied upon Ext.A13 certificate issued by the K.S.E.B and Ext.A8 employment contract issued by the Lamprell Dubai LLC . Ext.A12 certificate issued by the Ministry of Labour and Social affairs UAE and Ext.A10 passport. From Ext.A10 passport it is revealed that the deceased returned from UAE to India only on 18.10.2008, the day before the accident. In Exts. A9 it is stated that the basic salary of the deceased was 2288 UAE Dhs along with other allowances. However, Exts.A8 and A9 documents were not seen attested by the Embassy officials and as such they cannot be relied upon.

From Ext.A13 certificate issued by the K.S.E.B it is revealed that the deceased was engaged as a Fitter-cum-X-ray Welder, under M/s.West Coast Concrete products, the civil contractor of the Malankara Small Hydro Electric Project of K.S.E.B during the period of 2004 and 2005. In Ext.A13 it is further stated that, during his service he has attended various works relating to fabrication and erection of steel penstock pipes, draft tube cones etc. It is true that the petitioners could not prove the income of the deceased, as claimed in the OP. From the above documents it can be seen that, the