The assessment of notional income and functional disability should align with evidence presented, influencing compensation awarded in personal injury claims.

JUDGMENT :

C.S. Sudha, J.

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) has been filed by the claim petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.345/2019 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, N.Paravur (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 31/01/2020. The sole respondent herein is the third respondent in the petition. In this appeal, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition.

2. According to the claim petitioner, on 24/01/2019 at about 08:20 p.m., while he was riding motorcycle bearing registration no. KL-42-Q-2942 through Varapuzha-Edappilly road, scooter bearing registration no.KL-7/BJ-7985 ridden by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner collided with his vehicle, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries. An amount of ₹8,00,000/- was claimed as compensation under various heads.

3. The first respondent/owner and the second respondent/rider remained ex parte.

4. The third respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the policy but denying negligence on the part of the second respondent/rider of the offending vehicle. It was also contended that the amount claimed was exorbitant.

5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A8 were marked on the side of the claim petitioner. No documentary evidence was produced by the respondents.

6. The Tribunal on consideration of the documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the second respondent/rider of the offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹3,59,000/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the claim 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 award of compensation by the Tribunal under the following heads is challenged by the claim petitioner -

Notional income

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that the latter a 24 year old software developer was earning ₹25,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal fixed the notional income at ₹12,000/- which is quite low. He also drew my attention to I.A. No.1/2025 filed for receiving additional documents. The additional documents produced are an appointment letter issued by Bharathi Information Technologies Pvt. Ltd., as per which his monthly remuneration is ₹32,000/-. The other document is a certificate dated 17/01/2019 issued by the Principal, Mar Gregorios Adbul Jaleel Arts and Science College to the effect that the claim petitioner had completed BCA course in the year 2016. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that these documents cannot be accepted in evidence as they ought to have been produced before the Tribunal. The appointment letter cannot be marked without examining the person who issued the same. The second document, that is, the certificate dated 17/01/2019 only shows that the claim petitioner completed his BCA course and that he had not obtained degree from the college. Therefore, she submits that without examining the persons who had issued the certificates the said documents cannot be admitted or received in evidence to substantiate the case of the claim petitioner.

9.1. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer, the appointment letter ought to have been produced before the Tribunal and the same cannot be admitted in evidence without examinin